contrapuntalist

The slopes of Lebanon

2006-07-30T17:51:00.000-04:00

An essay titled "Hebrew Melodies" from Amos Oz's 1988 collection called The Slopes of Lebanon.

Discussing the 1982 invasion of Lebanon . . .

The guilt for Lebanon lies not with Begin alone…We will have to grit our teeth and admit that this war was a war of the people. The people wanted it and the people (most of them) supported it, took pleasure in it, and hated the handful who were opposed. At least that is how it was until the war got "bogged down"…There are times when I forget a little, when I try to persuade myself that the "people" learned a lesson, that they have learned—the hard way—the limits of power, that there's a catch in a philosophy based on violence. There are times when I think that "it" can't happen again."

. . .

[A]mong the victims of the Lebanon War was "the Land of Israel, small and brave, determined and righteous." It died in Lebanon perhaps precisely because, in Lebanon, its back was not to the wall…After Lebanon, we can no longer ignore the monster, even when it is dormant, or half asleep, or when it peers out from behind the lunatic fringe. After Lebanon, we must not pretend that the monster dwells only in the offices of Meir Kahane; or only on General Sharon's ranch, or only in Raful's carpentry shop, or only in the Jewish settlements in the West Bank. It dwells, drowsing, virtually everywhere, even in the folk-singing guts of our common myths. Even in our soul-melodies. We did not leave it behind in Lebanon, with the Hezbollah. It is here, among us, a part of us…That which you have done—whether it be only once in your life, in one moment of stupidity or in an outburst of anger—that which you were capable of doing—even if you have forgotten, or have chosen to forget, how and why you did it—that which you have done and regretted bitterly, you may never do again. But you are capable of doing it. You may do it. It is curled up inside you."

Perpetual revolution

2006-07-30T17:36:00.000-04:00

From Naguib Mahfouz's Sugar Street (book III of the Cairo Trilogy):

"I believe in life and in people. I feel obliged to advocate their highest ideals as long as I believe them to be true, since shrinking from that would be a cowardly evasion of duty. I also see myself compelled to revolt against ideals I believe to be false, since recoiling from this rebellion would be a form of treason. This is the meaning of perpetual revolution."

Abortion Rights

2006-03-27T08:26:00.000-05:00

The Bush administration, although advocating for human rights as being universal, has resorted to doing the very same thing that it accuses other countries such as Iran, China, and Saudi Arabia of doing: applying a cultural relativists justification for denying a certain right, in this case, the right to abortion as a human right. By reaffirming a “culture of life” through the regulation of cultural values, the far right has created the perception that American values are under threat, that moral absolutes exist, and therefore these values ought to be preserved.

In this post, I attempt to provide a brief history of the abortion litigation. Most Americans don't really understand the legacy of Roe.

In the United States, a woman’s right to an abortion (or a “woman’s right to choose”) is founded in the right to privacy. Even though American courts have noted that the Constitution does not explicitly provide for a right to abortion, the courts have creatively carved out such right from the right to privacy. The right to privacy, which is also not explicitly stated in the Constitution, has its founding in the “substantive due process” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment, in its pertinent part, states that no “state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” This clause has come to be known as the substantive due process clause. The right to privacy, and consequently, the right to abortion are carved out of this clause of the Constitution.

The right to privacy cases first appeared in the 1920s. Even though the case of Meyer v. Nebraska, was a case about family autonomy, it nevertheless laid the foundation for a right to privacy. In Meyer, the Supreme Court ruled that a state statute that makes it criminal to teach children any language other than English violates the due process guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution. The state of Nebraska had passed a statute making the teaching of any language other than English in its public schools a crime punishable by jail sentence. Meyer, a teacher, was tried and convicted by a Nebraska court for teaching German to a child. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and held that the liberty guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment does not only include economic rights, but the right to “acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of [one’s] conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness of free men.” The Court found that the Fourteenth Amendment provides parents the right to control the upbringing of their children. Meyer was the first case which defined the term liberty in the Due Process Clause to protect the basic aspects of family autonomy.

In a similar case, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, the Supreme Court ruled that parents have a right to choose the type of school to send their children to – whether public or private. Even though both of these cases did not explicitly establish that the parents have these rights under the right of privacy, they were nevertheless landmark case that were later cited to create a right to privacy.

The case explicitly recognizing to privacy was Griswold v. Connecticut. Griswold relied on Meyer and Pierce in order to find such a right. Griswold, the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut was convicted under a Connecticut law which made counseling of married persons to take contraceptives a criminal offense. The Supreme Court overturned the convicted and held that the various guarantees of the Constitution create “penumbras,” or zones of privacy. These penumbras of privacy are created by the First Amendment’s right of association, the Third Amendment’s prohibition against the peacetime quartering of soldiers, the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, the Fifth Amendment’s self-incrimination clause, and the Ninth Amendment’s reservation to the people of unenumerated rights. The Court held that the Connecticut law violates this right to privacy because it forbids the use of contraceptives in a couple’s house. The Court noted that “[i]f the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.”

The right to abortion in American jurisprudence has its doctrinal roots in the rights concerning family and reproductive autonomy as discussed in Meyer, Pierce, and Griswold. The leading case which declared abortion to be a right in American law is Roe v. Wade. In Roe, the plaintiff challenged Texas abortion laws that outlawed abortion. Most states had adopted similar laws. The Supreme Court was presented with the question of whether the constitutional right of privacy includes a woman’s right to choose and terminate her pregnancy. Justice Blackmun, writing for the majority of the Court, held that even though the Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy, such a right has been recognized by the court’s earlier decisions – as summarized above. This right of privacy, Blackmun wrote, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision to terminate her pregnancy. A statute regulating a fundamental right, such as a right to privacy, he argued, can only be justified only by a compelling governmental interest. The state of Texas had argued that the fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, whose right to life is guaranteed by that amendment. Justice Blackmun noted that the fetus has never been recognized as a person and that Texas may not override the rights of a pregnant woman by making such an argument.

However, the Court also noted that the woman’s right is not absolute and that the state does have a legitimate interest in preserving the health of the pregnant woman and protecting the potential life of the fetus. The Court established a trimester framework and ruled that during the first trimester, a woman’s right to abortion overrides the states’ interests. However, the state may regulate the abortion procedure in the second trimester to protect the health of the mother, and may even proscribe abortion in the third trimester to protect the life of the fetus. Under Roe, a state could not regulate a woman’s decision to terminate her pregnancy in the first trimester, while the state’s regulation of abortion in the second and third trimester must be narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest.

By the 1990s, however, the change in the composition of the Supreme Court raised questions as to whether Roe would be overruled. In 1989, in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services,four out of the nine justices seemed poised to overrule Roe. However, in the landmark case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Supreme Court narrowed Roe instead of overruling it. In Casey, the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act required a doctor to provide a woman seeking an abortion with information designed to persuade her against abortion and imposed a waiting period of at least 24 hours between provision of the information and the abortion. The law also required a minor to obtain consent of one parent or a judge’s order before having an abortion, and a married woman to sign a statement stating that her husband had been notified, among other things. Five clinics and doctors sued the governor of the state claiming that the law was unconstitutional as it violated Roe. The Court’s holding in this case, even though preserving the right to abortion, differed greatly from Roe as it weakened a woman’s right to choose. The Court held that the law was unconstitutional because it places an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to an abortion before fetal “viability.” Moreover, the law places a “substantial obstacle” in the path of woman seeking to exercise her right.

The Court rejected Roe’s trimester framework and noted that medical technology has altered the age of viability – which is the point at which a fetus can be said to be an independent life. Therefore, a state’s interest in protecting the fetus post-viability outweighs the mother’s decision-making interest. The Court held that the application of the rigid trimester framework often ignored state interests. The Court also held that information requirement is not an undue burden and that “truthful, non-misleading” information on the nature of the abortion procedures may lead the woman to choose life. Moreover, a 24-hour waiting period does not create a health risk and reasonably furthers the state’s interest in protecting the life of the unborn child. Furthermore, a state may require parental consent for a minor provided that there is a “judicial bypass procedure.” Even though the court held the statute to be unconstitutional, it marks the first time the Court downgraded a fundamental right which stemmed from Roe and free from any restrictions or burdens to a protect liberty – which may be regulated as long as there is no undue burden placed on the woman.

Prior to Casey, the Court had invalided waiting periods for adult women’s abortions. In City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Inc., the Court declared that a city ordinance prohibiting physicians from performing an abortion until 24 hours after the pregnant woman signed a consent form was unconstitutional. However, in Casey, the Court used the undue burden test and upheld the constitutionality of a 24 hour waiting period. Prior to Casey, the Court had held that laws requiring that woman be advised about the fetus and its characteristics at the state of pregnancy were unconstitutional. However, after Casey, these requirements are much more likely to be upheld as long as they do not place an undue burden on a woman’s right to choose. In Akron, the Court had held that a city ordinance that required physicians to inform women seeking abortions about the developments of her fetus and that the “unborn child is a human life from the moment of conception” was unconstitutional. Such a statute will most likely be held to be constitutional under Casey.

Moreover, in Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Court had invalidated a Pennsylvania law that required women to be given seven different kinds of information at least 24 hours before they give consent for abortion. These included telling the woman that there may be unforeseeable detrimental physical and psychological effects to having an abortion, the possible availability of prenatal and childbirth medical care, and the father’s liability to pay child support. The physician also had to inform the woman of the availability of printed materials that described the anatomical and physiological characteristics of the “unborn child” at two weeks gestational increments. The Court, however, ruled that such a law was unconstitutional because it was motivated by a desire to discourage women from having abortions and because it imposed a rigid requirement that a specific body of information be communicated regardless of the needs of the patient or the judgment of the physician.

In Casey, however, the Court upheld a provision virtually identical to that invalidated in Thornburgh. The Court in Casey stated that “to the extent Akron and Thornburgh find a constitutional violation where the government requires … the giving of truthful, non-misleading information about the nature of the abortion procedure, the attendant health risks and those of childbirth, and the ‘probable gestational age’ of the fetus, those cases are inconsistent with Roe’s acknowledgment of an important interest in potential life, and are overruled.” The Court’s shift in Casey abandoned the position that the state may not regulate abortions in a way to discourage the woman from having an abortion. The Court responded to the growing discontent of Roe in the political and social climate of this country and decided to limit a woman’s human right to choose.

Another important decision which stems out of the Casey framework is Stenberg v. Carhart, which placed limitations on what the conservatives has described as "partial birth abortion."

The Supreme Court and abortion litigators have picked a strategy which was used to limit the holding of Plessy v. Ferguson. The Court does not want to declare abortion unconstitutional right away, rather it wants to chip away from Roe's holding, and make abortion such a difficult thing to get that in a few years Roe will be easier to overturn. It took the Court over 60 years to overturn Plessy, and when it finally did so in Brown v. Board of Education, Plessy had been limited, or was chipped away at, by numerous cases. The same strategy is being used for Roe.

An inadvertent mistake in Holcomb

2006-02-26T21:31:00.000-05:00

"Until one morning in mid-November of 1959, few Americans - in fact, few Kansans - had ever heard of Holcomb. Like the waters of river, like the motorists on the highway, and like the yellow trains streaking down the Santa Fe tracks, drama, in the shape of exceptional happenings, had never stopped there." (From Truman Capote's In Cold Blood).

I had read about Truman Capote (Truman Streckfus Persons) in a New Yorker article some time ago. But when his biographical movie came out, I decided to read some of his work before watching him on the big screen. I was told that the movie focuses on the latter half of his literary career - the writing of In Cold Blood.

Capote was born in New Orleans to a 16-year old mother and a father who could not hold a job. Financial troubles led to a divorce between his parents, and Capote was sent to live with an aunt and other relatives in Monroeville, Alabama. Growing up in Alabama, Capote made friends with Harper Lee, who portrayed him as Dill in her Pulitzer Prize winning novel, To Kill a Mockingbird. Lee describes Dill the following way:

"Dill was a curiosity. He wore blue linen shorts that buttoned to his shirt, his hair was snow white and stuck to his head like duckfluff; he was a year my senior but I towered over him. As he told us the old tale his blue eyes would lighten and darken; his laugh was sudden and happy; he habitually pulled at a cowlick in the center of his forehead."

After his mother's second marriage, Capote followed her and her new Cuban husband to the northeast, where he attended school in Greenwich, CT, and then began writing for the New Yorker. Capote never attended college. He is probably most famously known for Breakfast at Tiffanys. When I read Breakfast at Tiffanys (never seen the movie), I could not help but draw stark comparisons between Capote, himself, and the narrator. The narrator is given the same birthday as Capote (September 30). But interestingly, he is portrayed as a hot-blooded-rigid-heterosexual - probably the complete opposite of Capote.

So I went to see Mr. Capote on the big screens on Friday night. I was surprised to see that the movie has been nominated for five Academy Awards and has been in theatres for months now. I was also surprised to see that the theatre was packed.

In Cold Blood is a non-fiction novel which took Capote six years to finish. It involves the murder of a wealthy family from Kansas by two young killers, one of whom caught Capote's obsession. This is a must see movie. And you must see it after reading the novel. Capote is very objective in his novel - he explains the crime, the investigation, and the killers with great detail, without showing any mercy or compassion for either the victims or the killers. But when you see the movie, you realize that much more was going on in Capote’s head when he was writing the novel.

The movie begins with Capote discovering an article in the New York Times describing the murders in Kansas. The story caught Capote’s eye. The story gave him an opportunity to test his theory that he can make non-fiction as compelling as fiction. Along with Harper Lee, Capote sets out to investigate in order to write about the impact the murders had on the tiny town of Holcomb, Kansas. He is able to convince the New Yorker in giving him an assignment for a short story which later develops into a book. Capote first thought that the fate of the killers would be irrelevant to his novel. Though it turns out to be true for the purposes of his novel, the fate of the killers nevertheless transform him for the rest of his life. Once the killers are found, Capote sets out to inquire into the reasons why one Perry Smith and his co-agent Richard Hitchcock killed this family. Capote develops an intimate relationship with Smith, whose childhood replicated Capote’s.

In order to secure his story (which could only be done by befriending Smith) Capote pays for the federal habeas corpus appeal of the perpetrators' state court convictions. The District Court, and the Circuit Court deny relief. Capote is able to secure his story by befriending Smith who describes in gruesome details of the night of the murders. The Supreme Court grants certiorari. Now that Capote has already attained what he wanted from Smith, he awaits his death so that he can publish his novel. Smith then writes to Capote asking him for help in finding a lawyer who would argue before the Supreme Court. Capote does not reply and Smith continues trying. All Capote was interested in now was Smith’s and Hitchcock’s death – all he wanted to do now was to publish this much anticipated novel.

Finally, Capote learns that the Supreme Court has affirmed the District Court’s denial of habeas relief and that Smith and Hitchcock are to be hung by the government. The night of the hanging is the defining moment of Capote’s intellectual life. It transforms him. He sees the hanging of these two boys who are now paying with their lives for the mistake of a few seconds.

The movie concludes by noting what happend to Capote after the hanging of Smith and Hitchcock: The writer of Other Voices, Other Rooms (1948), A Tree of Night and Other Stories (1949), Local Color (1950), The Grass Harp (1951), Beat The Devil (1953), The Muses Are Heard (1956), Breakfast at Tiffany's (1958), Turn of the Screw (1960), The Innocents (1961), Selected Writings (1963), A Christmas Memory (1966), In Cold Blood (1966), The Thanksgiving Visitor (1968) was unable to publish anything valuable after witnessing the hangings.

Although he published The Dogs Bark in 1973, in an unpublished novel titled Answered Prayers, appearing in Esquire magazine after his death, Capote writes, “Sometimes more tears are shed on answered prayers than unanswered ones.” Capote became an alcoholic after Smith’s and Hitchcock’s hanging and later died from its complications. Obviously, the answered prayer was Capote’s wish for the death of Smith and Hitchcock. Capote lived a miserable life after publishing the novel. He got into major feuds with Gore Vidal, Norman Mailer, and even Jackie Onassis.

Like their replicated childhoods, Capote’s and Smith’s deaths also draw parallels. Both of them died as the results of an inadvertent mistake. The book and Capote's career represent strong statements against the death penalty - that it does not only kill the perpertrator of a crime, but also - though indirectly - unintentionally kills some of the most creative people of our society. In Smith's case, it destroyed two lives.

"In the disposition of capital cases in the United States, the median elapsed time between sentence and execution is approximately seventeen months. Recently, in Texas, an armed robber was electrocuted one month after his conviction; but in Louisiana at the present writing, two rapists have been waiting for a record twelve years. The variance depends a little on luck and a great deal on the extent of litigation. The majority of the lawyers handling these cases are court-appointed and work without recompense but more often than not the courts, in order to avoid future appeals based on complaints of inadequate representation, appoint men of first quality who defend with commendable vigor. However, even an attorney of moderate talent can postpone doomsday year after year, for the system of appeals that pervades American jurisprudence amounts to a legalistic wheel of fortune, a game of chance, somewhat fixed in the favor of the criminal, that the participants play interminably, first in the state courts, then through the Federal courts until the ultimate tribunal is reached--the United States Supreme Court. But even defeat there does not signify if petitioner's counsel can discover or invent new grounds for appeal; usually they can, and so once more the wheel turns, and turns until, perhaps some years later, the prisoner arrives back at the nation's highest court, probably only to begin again the slow cruel contest. But at intervals the wheel does pause to declare a winner--or, though with increasing rarity, a loser: Andrews' lawyers fought to the final moment, but their client went to the gallows on Friday, November 30, 1962." (In Cold Blood (p. 370))

Execution

2006-02-23T21:35:00.000-05:00

The past two months have been extremely distressful for capital punishment abolitionists. It was only a few month ago, on December 2, 2005, when North Carolina executed the 1,000th person, and South Carolina followed with the 1,001th person to be executed since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976. Furthermore, a Noble Peace Prize nominee, a man who claimed innocence till his last breaths, Stanley Tookie Williams, was executed in California on December 13, 2005. So far, eight people have already been executed in the year 2006. They include: Clarence Allen, Perrie Simpson, Marion Dudley, Marvin Bieghler, Jaime Elizalde, Glenn Benner II, Robert Neville, and Clyde Smith - all executed by lethal injection. While all these executions have become routine, so is the list of death row inmates being exonerated. Just today, we learned that members of the Arizona House and Senate offered apologies to Ray Krone, a former Arizona death row inmate. Krone was freed in 2002 following new DNA tests. Krone was lucky enough to have found exculpatory DNA evidence. The tragedy, however, is that many others cannot find such DNA evidence and die an undeserving death.

But even the most guilty of us do not deserve this cruel, inhuman and unusual punishment. As Albert Camus, the philosopher of absurdity, has put it in "Reflections on the Guillotine, Resistance, Rebellion & Death" (1966):

"An execution is not simply death. It is just as different from the privation of life as a concentration camp is from prison. It adds to death a rule, a public premeditation known to the future victim, an organization which is itself a source of moral sufferings more terrible than death. Capital punishment is the most premeditated of murders, to which no criminal's deed, however calculated can be compared. For there to be an equivalency, the death penalty would have to punish a criminal who had warned his victim of the date at which he would inflict a horrible death on him and who, from that moment onward, had confined him at his mercy for months. Such a monster is not encountered in private life."

What is even more disturbing is the fact that the death penalty is not applied equally and violates, in my opinion, the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. If we are going to kill people because they have killed others, we should kill them equally. A person who kills a black person should get the death penalty in the same manner that a person who kills a white person gets the death penalty. An empirical study of North Carolina's death penalty from the years 1993-1997 conducted by UNC found that race plays a significant role in who gets the death penalty. The researchers found that that defendants whose victims are white are 3.5 times more likely to be sentenced to death than those with non-white victims. The study was based on data collected from court records of 502 murder cases from 1993 to 1997.

Another research study conducted by researchers at the University of Maryland found that Maryland's death penalty system is tainted with racial bias. This study also found that defendants are much more likely to be sentenced to death if they have killed a white person. Yet another study conducted in Indiana found that race of the victim plays a role in death penalty sentencing. Furthermore, a report released by the New Jersey Supreme Court found that the state's death penalty law is more likely to proceed against defendants who kill white victims. The report concludes that "[t]here is unsettling statistical evidence indicating that cases involving killers of white victims are more likely to progress to a penalty phase than cases involving killers of African-American victims."

Therefore, the issue of the death penalty has created chaos in all moral and ethical paradigms: from the issue of cruelty, actual innocence, equality and many others. The activists of all generations have a particular challenge, i.e., World War II, the Civil Rights movement, the resistance against the Vietnam War, the fight against totalitarianism in Eastern Europe, so on and so forth. Death penalty is the moral challenge of our generation.

I found some solace in the words of Alberto J. Mora, the former General Counsel of the Department of the Navy, as quoted by Jane Meyer in "The Memo" (Feb. 27, 2006):

"If cruelty is no longer declared unlawful, but instead is applied as a matterof policy, it alters the fundamental relationship of man to government. It destroys the whole notion of individual rights. The Constitution recognizes that man has an inherent right, not bestowed by the state or laws, to personal dignity, including the right to be free of cruelty."

Lolita

2006-02-23T00:06:00.000-05:00

Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul. Lo-lee-ta: the tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps down the palate to tap, at three, on the teeth. Lo. Lee. Ta.

She was Lo, plain Lo, in the morning, standing four feet ten in one sock. She was Lola in slacks. She was Dolly at school. She was Dolores on the dotted line. But in my arms she was always Lolita.

Did she have a precursor? She did, indeed she did. In point of fact, there might have been no Lolita at all had I not loved, one summer, a certain initial girl-child. In a princedom by the sea. Oh when? About as many years before Lolita was born as my age was that summer. You can always count on a murderer for a fancy prose style.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, exhibit number one is what the seraphs, the misinformed, simple, noble-winged seraphs, envied. Look at this tangle of thorns.

These are perhaps some of the most provocative literary words of the 20th century. From Nobokov's Lolita.

The cartoons

2006-02-19T22:19:00.000-05:00

Feb 19, 2006

Representative Carolyn McCarthy
United States House of Representatives
106 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-0001

Dear Representative McCarthy,

As your constituent, I urge you to take action and sponsor a congressional resolution condemning the publication of cartoons defaming the Muslim Prophet Muhammad by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. I call on you to follow the lead of President George W. Bush who has called for "dialogue and tolerance," while the State Department has pronounced the cartoons as "offensive," and its spokesman has scolded that "inciting religious or ethnic hatred in this manner is not acceptable." Furthermore, even former President Bill Clinton has condemned the cartoons as being "totally outrageous." It is now Congress's turn to act.

The publication of these cartoons cannot be justified by the doctrine of free speech. The real issue with the cartoons is not whether the Danish newspaper had a right to depict the Muslim Prophet. Even I concede that they did have that right - as granted to them by their legal framework and cultural traditions. Indeed, even Muslims have depicted their Prophet without causing any serious protests in the Islamic world. The real issue, however, is whether the Danish newspaper had a right to depict the Muslim Prophet with a bomb - arguing in fact that the Prophet, like his followers, was a terrorist. This type of hate speech is not protected by any tradition or legal framework.

In applying the First Amendment of our Constitution, which arguably provides the most freedoms to those exercising free speech, the publication of the cartoon would be prohibited by the Supreme Court's decision in Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003) (holding that Virginia's ban on Cross-burning with intent to intimidate is not protected by the First Amendment); see also Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 572 (1942) ("[L]ewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or 'fighting' words-those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are not protected by the First Amendment; see also R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992) (listing types of speech not protected by the First Amendment). The general rule is that fighting words - words likely to illicit a violent response - are not protected by the First Amendment. That is exactly what the cartoons have done: they have instigated a fight between Islam and the West, a fight not protected by free speech. This is the very reason why it is imperative that you sponsor a congressional resolution condemning the publication of these cartoons.

The Danish newspaper probably knew that publishing these cartoons will illicit a violent reaction from the Muslim world. In fact, the newspaper's editor held a contest to determine which cartoons were "fit to print." Obviously, the publishing of the cartoons was not a random thought. It was very well thought out. Its repercussions were probably realized. But the newspaper still chose to publish it. Protecting the newspaper's actions by using the doctrine of free speech amounts to intellectual nihilism.

I urge you to take advantage of this critical opportunity to show the Muslim world that America has not declared a war on their religion and peoples. I urge you to take advantage of this critical opportunity to show the Muslim world that America practices what it preaches: freedom of religion. I urge you to take advantage of this critical opportunity to show the Muslim world that America cares about their human rights and concerns. Indeed, that is the very reason why we have risked the lives of our sons, daughters, mothers, fathers and friends to protect the freedom of religion and speech of the Iraqi people.

This is the time to win the hearts and minds of a people which have lost their faith in the world's superpower. I am not asking you to pass a resolution that requires an apology from the newspaper. In fact, my demands are narrow and thus feasible. I only urge you to work with other congressmen and congresswomen to sponsor a resolution that would condemn the publishing of these cartoons.

We learned today that Muslim fundamentalists have burned an American embassy in Indonesia while protesting the cartoons. It is time for Congress to take action, separate our country from the religious intolerance shown by the Danish newspaper, and convince the moderate Muslims that the very free speech that we are trying to import to their nations does not bring religious
intolerance with it.

Our nation's founders wisely established a bill of rights to allow free speech while also preventing against its abuses. For the sake of this country's integrity and commitment to democracy in the Muslim world, Congress must take action to convince the moderate Muslims that we stand with them, and not with the fundamentalist whether they be Muslim fundamentalists or fundamentalists of religious intolerance finding refuge under the doctrine of free speech.

We cannot play politics when nothing less than our freedom is at stake. I look forward to your immediate action.

Sincerely,

Contrapuntalist

A convo between the proprietor and the shaykh

2005-12-27T21:06:00.000-05:00

From Naguib Mahfouz's Palace Walk (Part I of the Cairo Trilogy).

When al-Sayyid Ahmad Abd al-Jawad reached his store, situated in front of the mosque of Barquq on al-Nahhasin Street, his assistant, Jamil al-Hamzawi, had already opened and readied it for their customers. The proprietor greeted him curiously and, smiling sweetly, headed for his desk. Al-Hamzawi was fifty. He had spent thirty of these years in this shop as an assistant to the founder, al-Hajj Abd al-Jawad, and then to al-Sayyid Ahmad after the father’s death. He remained loyal to his master both for the sake of his job and out of devotion. He revered and loved him the way everyone did who had any dealings with him, whether of business or friendship.

The truth was that he was dreaded and feared only in his own family. With everyone else – friends, acquaintances, and customers – he was a different person. He received his share of respect and esteem but above all else was loved. He was loved for the charm of his personality more than for any of his many other fine characteristics. His acquaintances did not know what he was like at home. The members of his family did not know him as others did.

His store was of medium size. Containers of coffee beans, rice, nuts, dried fruit, and soap were crammed on shelves and piled by the walls. The owner’s desk with its ledgers, papers, and telephone stood on the left opposite the entrance. To the right of there he sat there was a green safe mounted in the wall. It looked reassuringly solid, and its color was reminiscent of bank notes. In the center of the wall over the desk hung an ebony frame containing an Arabic inscription illuminated in gold that read: “In the name of God.”

Business was light early in the morning. The proprietor began to review the accounts of the previous day with a zeal inherited from his father but preserved with his own abundant vitality. Meanwhile al-Hamzawi stood by the entrance, his arms folded against his chest. He was reciting to himself the Qur’an verses he knew best. His voice could not be heard, but the continual motion of his lips gave him away. From time to tome a faint whisper slipped out from a sibilant s sound. He continued his recitation until the arrival of the blind shaykh who had been retained to recite the Qur’an every morning.

Al-Sayyid Ahmad would raise his head from his ledger every so often to listen to the recitation or look out at the street and the endless flow of passerby, hand and horse carts, and the Suares omnibus, which was so big and heavy it could scarcely wobble along. There were singing vendors who chanted jingles about their tomatoes, mallow greens, and okra, each in his own style. The commotion did not interfere with the proprietor’s concentration. He had grown accustomed to it over a period of more than thirty years. He was so lulled by the noise that he was disturbed if it ceased.

A customer came in and al-Hamzawi waited on him. Some friends and neighbors who were merchants stopped by. They liked to visit with al-Sayyid Ahmad, even if only for a short time. They would exchange greetings and enjoy one of his pleasantries or witty sayings. They made him feel proud of his skill as a gifted storyteller. His conversation had brilliant touches relating to popular culture that he had absorbed not from schooling, but from reading newspapers and befriending an elite group of gentry, government officials, and attorneys. His native wit, graciousness, charm, and status as a prosperous merchant qualified him to associate with them on an equal footing. He had molded a mentality for himself different from the limited mercantile one. The love, respect, and honor these fine people bestowed on him doubled his pride. When one of them sincerely and truthfully told him, “If you had had the opportunity to study law, you would have been an exceptionally eloquent attorney,” this statement inflated his ego. All the same, he was good at hiding his pride with his charm, modesty, and affability. None of these visitors stayed long. They went off one after the other, and the pace of work increased in the shop.

All at once a man rushed in as though propelled by a powerful hand. He stood in the middle of the store, squinting his narrow eyes to see better. He aimed them at the owner’s desk. Although he was no more than three meters away, his efforts to make him out were to no avail. So he called out, “Is al-Sayyid Ahmad Abd al-Jawad here?”

The proprietor replied with a smile, “Welcome, Shaykh Mutawalli Abd al-Samad. Have a seat. You bless us with your presence.”

The man bent his head. It so happened that as al-Hamzawi approached to greet him, the visitor, who did not notice his outstretched hand, sneezed unexpectedly. Al-Hamzawi drew back and took out his handkerchief. A smile and a frown collided on his face. The shaykh plunged toward the desk, muttering, “Praise God, Lord of the universe.” He raised the edge of his cloak and wiped his face with it. He said down on the chair his host offered him.

The Shaykh appeared to be in enviable health for his age, which was over seventy-five. If it had not been for his weak eyes, his eyelids that were inflamed at the edges and his sunken mouth, he would have had nothing to complain of. He was wrapped in a faded threadbare cloak. Although he would have exchanged it for a better one through donations of benefactors, he clung to it. He said that al-Husayn had blessed him in a dream and thus had given the cloak he wore an excellence that would not fade away. The shaykh had performed miracles by penetrating the barriers of normal human knowledge to the invisible realm. He was known equally for his healing prayers, amulets, candor, and wit. He was at home with humor and mirth and that especially endeared him to al-Sayyid Ahmad. Although a resident of the quarter, he did not burden any of his disciples with his visits. Months might pass without anyone knowing where he was. When he dropped by after an absence, he received a warm welcome and presents.

The owner gestured to his assistant to prepare the usual present of rice, coffee, and soap for the shaykh. Then he said to welcome him, “We’ve missed you, Shaykh Mutawalli. We haven’t had the pleasure of seeing you since the holiday of Ashura.”

The man replied bluntly, “I’m absent when I think fit and present when I choose. You should not ask why.”

The proprietor, who was used to his style, stammered, “Even when you are absent, your blessing is present.”

The shaykh did not seem touched by this praise. On the contrary, he shook his head in a way that showed his patience was exhausted. He said gruffly, “Haven’t I warned you more than once not to speak to me until I address you? You should be silent.”

Feeling an urge to vex him, the proprietor said, “Sorry, Shaykh Abd al-Samad. I forgot your warning. My excuse is that I forgot it because you have been absent so long.”

The shaykh struck his hands out together and shouted, “An excuse is worse than a sin.” Pointing his index finger in a threatening way, he continued: “If you persist in disobeying me, I’ll be unable to accept your gift.”

The proprietor sealed his lips and spread out his hands in submission, constraining himself to be quite this time. Shaykh Mutawalli waited to be sure of his obedience. After clearing his throat he said, “I commence with a prayer in honor of Muhammad, the beloved master of creation.”

The proprietor responded from his depths, “God’s blessing and peace on him.”

“I praise your father as he deserves; may God have plentiful passion for him and grant him a spacious abode in His paradise. I can almost see him sitting where you are. The difference between the two of you being that your late father retained the turban and you have traded it in for this fez.”

The proprietor murmured with a smile, “May God forgive us.”

The shaykh yawned until tears came to his eyes. Then he spoke again: “I pray to God that He may grant your children prosperity and piety: Yasin, Khadija, Aisha, and Kamal and their mother. Amen.”

Hearing the shaykh pronounce the names Khadija and Aisha sounded odd to al-Sayyid Ahmad, even though he was the one who had told him their names a long time ago, so he could write amulet inscriptions for them. It was not the first time the shaykh had pronounced their names, nor would it be the last, but never would the name of any of his women be mentioned outside their chambers, even on the tongue of Shaykh Mutawalli, without having a strange and unpleasant impact on him, even if only for a short time. All the same, he muttered, “Amen, O Lord of the universe.”

***

The shaykh leaned back and closed his eyes to rest a little. Meanwhile the proprietor scrutinized his face and smiled. Then the religious guide opened his eyes and addressed him in a calm voice and a note tone, giving warning of a new subject. He said, “What an astute and gallant man you are, Ahmad, you son of Abd al-Jawad.”

The proprietor smiled with pleasure. He responded in a low voice, “I ask God’s forgiveness, Shaykh Abd al-Samad…”

The shaykh interrupted him, saying, “Not so fast. I’m the sort of person who praises only to clear the way to speak the truth, for the sake of encouragement, son of Abd al-Jawad.”

A wary circumspection was evident in the eyes of the proprietor. He muttered, “May our Lord be gracious to us.”

The shaykh gestured at him with his gnarled forefinger and asked him threatening, “What do you have to say as a devout Muslim concerning your lust for women?”

The proprietor was accustomed to his candor. Thus he was not troubled by the assault. After a brief laugh he replied, “How can you fault me for that? Didn’t the Messenger of God (the blessing and peace of God upon him) speak of his love for perfume and women?”

The shaykh frowned and looked even grimmer in protest against the proprietor’s logic, which he did not like. He countered, “Licit acts are not the same as forbidden ones, you son of Abd al-Jawad. Marriage is not the same as chasing after hussies.”

The proprietor stared at nothing in particular and said in a serious tone, “I have never allowed myself to offend against honor and dignity at all. Praise God for that.”

The shaykh struck his hands on his knees and exclaimed with astonishment and disgust, “A weak excuse fit only for a weak person. Immorality is damnable even if it is with a debauched woman. Your father, may God have mercy on him, was crazy about women. He married twenty times. Why don’t you follow his path and shun the sinner’s?”

The proprietor laughed out loud. He asked, “Are you one of God’s saints or a nuptial official? My father was sterile, so he married many times. Even though I was his only child, his property was split up between me and his last four wives, not to mention what he lost during his lifetime in divorce settlements. Now I’m the father of three males and two females. It wouldn’t be proper for me to slip into more marriages and have to divide my wealth that God has bestowed on us. Don’t forget, Shaykh Mutawalli, that the professional women entertainers of today are the slave girls of yesterday, whose purchase and sale God made legal. More than anything else, God is forgiving and merciful.”

The shaykh moaned. Shaking his torso right and left, he said, “How adept you are, you sons of Adam, in embellishing evil. By God, you son of Abd al-Jawad, were it not for my love of you, I would not suffer you to speak to me, you fornicator.”

The proprietor spread out his hands and said with a smile, “God grant…”

The shaykh snorted in annoyance and yelled, “If it weren’t for your jokes, you’d be the most perfect of men.”

“Perfection is God’s alone.”

The shaykh turned toward him and motioned with his hands as if to say, “Let’s put this aside.” Then he asked in the tone of an interrogator tightening his grip around his victim’s throat, “And wine? What do you say about that?”

Suddenly the proprietor’s spirits flagged. His discomfort was apparent in his eyes. He remained silent for some time. The shaykh sensed submission in his silence. He shouted in triumph, “Isn’t it forbidden? No one would succumb to it who strives to obey and love God.”

The proprietor interrupted with the zeal of a man fending off a veritable disaster: “I certainly strive to obey and love Him.”

“By word or deed?”

Although he had an answer ready, he took some time to think about it before replying. He was not accustomed to busying himself with introspection or self-analysis. In this way he was like most people who are rarely alone. His mind did not swing into action until some external force required it: a man or woman or some element of his material life. He had surrendered himself to the busy current of his life, submerging himself totally in it. All he say of himself was his reflection on surface of the stream. Moreover, his zest for life had not diminished as he grew older. He was forty-five and still enjoyed an ardent and exuberant vigor like that of an adolescent youth. His life was composed of a diversity of mutually contradictory elements, wavering between piety and depravity. Contradictory though they were, they all met with his satisfaction, without needing to be propped up by any pillar of personal philosophy or hypocritical rationalizations. His conduct issued directly from his special nature. Having a clear conscience, he was good-hearted and sincere in everything he did. His breast was not shaken by storms of doubt, and he passed nights peacefully. His faith was deep. It was true that he had inherited it and that there was no room for innovation in it. All the same, his sensitivity, discernment, and sincerity had added an elevated, refined feeling to it, which prevented it from being a blind traditionalism or a ritualism inspired by nothing but desire or fear. The most striking characteristics of his faith as a whole was its pure, fertile love. Using it, he set he set about performing all his duties to God, like prayer, fasting, or almsgiving, with love, ease, and happiness; not to mention a clear conscience, a heart abounding in love for people, and a soul that was generous in its gallantry and help of others. These qualities made him a dear friend. People vied to enjoy the pleasures of his friendship.

With the same ardent, overflowing vitality, he opened his breast to the joys of pleasures of life. He delighted in fancy food. He was enchanted by vintage wine. He was crazy about a pretty face. He pursued each of these pleasures with gaiety, joy and passion. His conscience was not weighed down by guilty feelings or anxious scruples. He was exercising a right granted him by life, as though there was no conflict between the duty life gave his heart and the duty God entrusted to his conscience. At no time in his life he felt estranged from God or a target of His vengeance. He communed peacefully with Him. Was he two separate people combined into one personality? Was his faith in the divine magnanimity so strong that he could not believe these pleasures really had been forbidden? Even if they were forbidden, should they not be excused so long as no one was harmed? Most probably what happened was that he embraced life with his heart and emotions without resorting to thought or reflection. He found within himself strong instincts, some directed toward quenched in play. The integration of all these within him was secure and carefree. His soul was not disturbed by any need to reconcile them. He was not forced to justify them in his thoughts, except under the pressure of criticism like that with which Shaykh Mutawalli Abd al-Samad confronted him. Under such circumstances, he found himself more distressed by thinking than by the accusation itself, not because he shrugged off being accused before God, but because he could not believe that he was actually being accused or that God would truly be angry at him for having little fun that harmed no one. Thought, however, was a burden and revealed how trivial his knowledge of his religion was. For this reason, he frowned when the other man challengingly asked him whether his obedience was “by word or deed.”

He responded in a tone that did not hide his distress. “By word and deed both. By prayer, fasting, and almsgiving. By remembering God whether I am standing or sitting. Why is it wrong for me, after that, to refresh myself with a little fun, harming no one, or for me to overlook one rule? Is nothing forbidden save these two things?”

The shaykh raised his eyebrows and closed his eyes to indicate that he did not agree. Then he muttered, “What a perverse defense!”

The proprietor suddenly went from anxiety to gaiety, as was his wont, and said expansively, “God is clement and merciful, Shaykh Abd al-Samad. I don’t picture Him, may He be high and exalted, being in any way spiteful or sullen. Even His vengeance is mercy in disguise. I offer Him love, obedience, reverence, and a good deed is worth ten…”

“In the calculus of good deeds, you have the most to gain.”

The proprietor motioned Jamil al-Hamzawi to bring the shaykh’s present. He said happily, “God’s all we need, along with the favors of His deputy.”

The proprietor’s assistant brought him the parcel, which he took and presented to the shaykh. “To your health,” he said with a laugh.

The shaykh accepted it and said, “May God provide for you generously and forgive you.”

The proprietor mumbled, “Amen.” Then, smiling, he asked him, “Weren’t you well off once, master?”

The shaykh laughed and replied, “May God go easy on you. You’re a generous man with a good heart. I take this occasion to caution you against excessive generosity, for it is not compatible with making a living as a merchant.”

The proprietor asked in astonishment, “Are you tempting me to withdraw the gift?”

The man rose and replied, “The gift to me is not excessive. Begin somewhere else, you son of Abd al-Jawad. Peace to you and God’s mercy.”

The shaykh left the store in a hurry and disappeared from sight. The proprietor kept on thinking. He was mulling over the dispute that had flared up between him and the shaykh. Then he spread his hands out in entreaty. He mumbled, “God, forgive me both my bygone and recent sins. God, You are clement and merciful.”

In the loving memory of June Jordan

2005-11-25T23:17:00.000-05:00

June Jordan was the most published African American woman in American hisotry. I guess one of the advantages of being sick for weeks, along with numerous other disadvantages such as missing school, etc., is that I get to listen June Jordan speeches on my laptop.

Here is a taste of this very sexy woman.

Intifada.

Detention in concentration camps we trade stories, we take turns sharing a straw mat or a pencil. We watch what crawls in and out of the sand.

A salaam aleikum.

The guards do not allow the blue woolen blanket my family traveled far to bring to this corpuscular angelic cell where my still breathing infant son and I defy the purgatory implications of the state-created hell.

Wa aliqum A salaam.

The village trembles from the heavy tanks that try to terrify the children. Every day my little brother runs behind the rubble, practicing the tactics of the stones against the rock. In January, soldiers broke his fingers one by one. Time has healed his hands, but not the fury that controls what used to be his heart.

Inshallah.

Close villages, close the clinics, close the school, close the house, close the windows of the house, kill the vegetables languishing under the sun, kill the milk of the cows left to the swelling of pain, cut the electricity, cut the telephones, confine the people to the people.

Do not despair of the mercy of Allah.

Fig trees will grow and oranges erupt from desert holdings on which plastic bullets, 70% zinc, 20% glass and 10% plastic will prove blood soluble and fertilize the earth where sheep will graze and women no longer grieve and beat their breasts, they will be beat, clean, fine woven rugs outside of a house smelling of cinnamon and nutmeg.

Alhumdullialah

So says Imam, the Teacher, the future of peace, the shepherd on the mountain of the lamb, the teacher of peace who will subdue the howling of the lion, so that we may kneel as we must, five times beginning just after dawn, and ending just before dusk in Ibada of prayer.

Allah hu Akbar, Allah hu Akbar, Allah hu Akbar.

Here is more:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this killer crusade, this conversion of a stranger’s land into a killing field, this reduction of a people to a video display. This homicidal rhetoric that history does not support, that our common destiny is certain to condemn. This war has not saved one human being. This war has not saved a single American life. This war has not saved a single Israeli life. This a war has not saved a single Iraqi life. This war has not rescued the lives of Kuwait. This grand undertaking, this enormous, this infinitely casual overkill, this draining of our hearts, this annihilation of all tenderness, this erasure of every reason, every rational and civilized approach to dispute. This arched and leering assault upon all peaceable possibilities, this blasphemy unleashed against our shrunken trembling earth, that has become in the hellified lexicon of the killers ruling us, a target rich environment. This war has not saved one human being from terror or from unspeakable agonies of extinction. Then, why do we permit this blasphemy to persist, expand, and explode our body politic as well as the entire middle east?

I grieve the sorrow roar, the sorrow sob. I grieve the monstrous consequences of this war.

And you thought this was about the recent war on Iraq. Nope. This was her speech from 1991.

Here is more.

This is the column that I wrote on the night there was, among other things, the anniversary of the assassination of Malcolm X was last Thursday. On a recent cold Sunday morning in Kennebunkport, Maine, George Bush and his wife, Barbara, apparently seated themselves inside a small country church of God to think about what? Alma Powell, wife of the Joint Chief of commanders of the armed forces reports that she likes to keep comforting foods like vegetable soup ready on top of the stove for Colin, her certainly hard-working husband. Alma adds that these days she knows that her Colin doesn't want to hear little stories about the children, just the soup, ma'am.

Secretary of Defense, Dick Cheney, second only to his boss in blood thirst for arms length armchair warfare has never served half an hour even in the Army, the Navy, the Air Force or the Marines. I know, it's not right to pick on him just for that. Last Saturday, at a local anti-war rally, organized by the Middle East Children's Alliance, I noted aloud that the war to date was costing us $56 billion every 24 hours a, the cost is $1 billion at least. I therefore, proposed the following to the crowd scattered on the grass and under the trees. $1 billion a day for seven days for Oakland. Can you imagine that? $1 billion a day, but to hell with the imagination. This is our city. This is our money, these are our lives. $1 billion a day for seven days for Oakland. Or do we accept that that there is only the will and the wallet when it's about kill or be killed? Do we need this money, or not? Do we need it here? Do we need it now? And so on. When I left the stage, a reporter came up to me. “You meant $1 million, didn't you?” “No“, I answered him amazed. “$1 billion. $1 billion a day for seven days for Oakland. That's the bill. That's our bill for housing and drug rehabilitation and books in the public schools and hospital care and all of that good stuff.”

$1 billion a day. It's a modest proposal. In less than three months, those maniacs in the White House and the Pentagon have spent $56 billion in my name, and with my taxes trying to obliterate Iraq and its people and their leaders. I'm saying call home the troops and the bucks. We need these big bucks to make this a homeland, not a desert right here for the troops and for you and for me. What's the problem? It's a bargain. $7 billion of a serious improvement of American life in Oakland versus $56 billion for death and destruction inside Iraq? What's the problem? But the reporter was giving me a weak smile of farewell that let me understand he found my proposal preposterous. $1 million for life okay. Billions for kill, or be killed okay. But really big bucks on us, the people of these United States? $1 billion a day to promote, for example, the safety and educational attainment and communal happiness of 339,000 Americans? I must be kidding. As I walked away from the park, I felt a heavy depression overtaking me. The reporter, a tall, white man with clear eyes could not contemplate the transfer of his and my aggregate resources from death to life as a reasonable idea. Worse, he could not suppose his and my life to be worth anything close to the value of organized high-tech and boastful murder. But then, other people stopped me to ask how can we do that? Do we write letters or what?

So, as I write this column tonight, I am reassured because not every American has lost her mind or his soul. Not every one of my compatriots who become a plaid-wrapped lunatic, lusting after oil and power, the perversions of kicking ass, preferably via TV. A huge number of Americans has joined with enormous numbers of Arab peoples and European communities in Germany, England, France, Italy, Spain and Muslim communities throughout India and Pakistan to cry out “stop”! When I say huge, I mean it. If 1,000 Americans contacted by some pollster can be said to represent 250 million people, then how many multi, multimillions do we anti-war movement gatherings of more than 100,000 coast to coast and on every continent, how many do we represent? How come nobody ever does that kind of political math? Tonight, February 2, 1991, when yet again, the ruling white men of America despise peace and sneer at negotiations and intensify their arms length arm-chair prosecution of this evil war, this display of racist value system that will never allow for any nationalism that is not their own and that will never allow third world countries to control their own natural resources and that will never ever express let alone feel regret or remorse or shame or horror at the loss of any human life that is not white. Tonight, I am particularly proud to be an African-American. By launching the heaviest air assault in history against Iraq on January 15, George Bush dared to desecrate the birthday of Martin Luther King Jr.

Tonight, and 83,000 bombing missions later is the 26th anniversary of the assassination of Malcolm X. On this sorry evening, the world has seen the pathological real deal behind the sanctimonious rhetoric of Bush & Company. The Persian Gulf War is not about Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait. The war is not about Kuwait at all. Clearly, it's not about international law or respect or United Nations resolutions since by comparison to Washington and Pretoria, the Butcher of Baghdad is a minor league Johnny come-lately to the realm of outlaw conduct and contempt for world opinion. What has happened tonight is that the Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev and the government of Iraq have reached an agreement whereby Iraq will withdraw from Kuwait, and that is a fact regardless of anything else included or omitted by the proposal. This agreement should provide for immediate ceasefire, a cessation to the slaughter of Iraqi men and women, and a halt to the demolition nationwide of their water supply, the access to food and security. What is the response of the number one white man in America? He's gone off to the theater. I guess that means that the nearest church was closed. Or that Colin Powell was busy dipping his spoon into the comfort of a pot of soup somebody else cooked for him. And that Dick Cheney was fit to be tied into any uniform so long has nobody would take away his Patriot missiles and Apache helicopters, and B52 cluster bombers, and black and brown and poor white soldiers and sailors and all of the rest of these toys for a truly big-time coward. Confronted with the nightmare prospect of peace, Bush goes off to the theater because he will be damned if he will acknowledge that Saddam Hussein is a man, is the head of a sovereign state, is an enemy to be reckoned with, an opponent with whom one must negotiate. Saddam is not a white man. He and his Arab peoples must be destroyed. No peace, no cease-fire, no negotiations. And I am proud tonight to remember Dr King and Malcolm X and to mourn their actions even as I pursue the difficult challenge of their legacy. Both of these men became the targets of white wrath when they in their different ways developed into global visionaries persisting against racism in Alabama, in Harlem, in South African, in Vietnam. Neither of these men could have failed to condemn this current attack against the Arab world. Neither of these men ever condoned anything less than equal justice and equal rights.

Hence, the undeniably racist double standards now levied against Saddam Hussein would have appalled and alienated both of them completely. I am proud to shake hands with the increasing number of African-American conscientious objectors. I am proud to remark the steadfast moral certainty of the United States Congressman Ronald Dylan's opposition to the war. I am proud to hear about the conscientious objections of Congressman Gus Savage, and John Conyers and Mervin as I am proud to observe that even while African-Americans remain disproportionately represented in the United States armed forces, we as a national community stand distinct, despite and apart from all vagaries of popular opinion. We maintain a proportionately higher level of opposition to this horrible war, this horrendous evasion of domestic degeneration and decay.

I want to say something else specific you to, Mr President. It's true you can humiliate and you can hound and you can smash and burn and terrify and smirk and boast, and defame, and demonize and dismiss and incinerate and starve, and yes, you can force somebody -- force a people to surrender what happens, what happens to remain of their bloody boweled into your grasping, bony, dry hands -- but all of us who are weak, we watch you. And we learn from your hatred, and we do not forget. And we are ready, Mr. President. We are most of the people on this god-forsaken planet.

May God rest her soul in heaven.

The bombings in Jordan

2005-11-12T20:49:00.000-05:00

I was recently accused, quite ferociusly, of suggesting that Israel was behind the recent bombings in Jordan. The Haaretz and the Los Angeles Times, both anti-semetic newspapers of course, recently reported that Israelis were told to evacuate the hotels before the bombing.

I would never suggest that Israel is responsible for this act of terror. As we all know, Israel does not kill innocent civilians for political goals like the terrorists do.

Given that Israel is not responsible for this act of terror, the fact that Israelis were told to evacuate the hotels should provoke a miniscule thought that maybe, the Israelis have something to do with this. Given Israel's history of bombing hotels hosting civilians (Beirut in 1982, Tunis in 1982, the siege of Ramallah in 2000), a person looking at the conflict from an objective point of view should think of Israeli terrorism as much as one would think of "Jihadist" terrorism.

Ok, lets now assume that Israel's evacuation instructions to Israeli Jews in the Jordanian hotels was based on some sort of counter-terrorism intelligence. Even under this theory, the Israelis have an obligation to share that intelligence with the Jordanian authorities - with whom the Israelis have normalized relations. Protecting your own kind while knowing that tens of the other kind will be massacred is no worse than the Good Germans sitting idly by as 9 million people were massacred. I am not saying that Israel has a legal responsibility - but it does have the moral responsibility.

One cannot assume that Israel's withholding of this critical information is allowed because Jordan and Israel are enemies - and no enemies share such intelligence. That is not the case - Jordan is Israel's ally and has paid the price for it. It killed thousands of Palestinians in the Black September, and its recognition and good relations with Israel may have caused it the lives of 56 civilians this past week.

Granted that the militaristic and nationalist security states that emerged after the independence struggle movements of the 1940s and 1950s are extremely unsuccessful. However, like every society, there is a human rights movement in the Arab world, there is a woman's movement in the Arab world. There is a secular movement in the Arab world committed to ideas of inter-Arab cooperation, sharing resources and ideas, etc - yet all we hear about in this country is Hamas and Hizbollah. Almost without exception, nearly every serious Arab cultural figure, poet, essayist, intellectual, dramatist, every important artist, filmmaker, is in opposition to his or her government and their alienating self serving bureaucracies. But I ask, where has the US placed itself.

It has tacitly supported the Syrian and Iraqi Baathist regimes, the Kuwaiti and Saudi oligarchies, the Moroccan throne, the brutal dictatorship of the Shahs and Zias, the Afghani Mujahideen. The US has decidedly not supported the movements within the Arab world for democratic and human rights.

I think that everyone concedes that since the end of the end of the cold war, the US has become the most influential source of change and ideas in the Arab world and has played an important role in the dismal political landscape of the Arab world. No other society is talked about as much as the American in Arab media. Almost every news story having to do with politics, culture or movies makes mention of the US. Yet in all those cases - the civil rights movement, woman rights movement, etc., we must honestly say that the US either did nothing or opposed these movements. The US has always opposed the fight for Palestinian democracy. The US did nothing for woman's right in Afghanistan before 9/11 yet it signed a $10 dollar oil pipeline deal, the US said nothing before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the US said nothing at the time the Saddam regime was murdering the Khurds, the US did nothing when the Turkish government, the very government it has supported for a long time, illegally invaded Cyprus 17 years ago and is now slaughtering the same Khurds that Saddam killed.

The absence of democracy and culture of violence are responsibility of the Arabs to rectify. But because the US has important and even massive interest in the Arab world - obviously oil - and regularly intervenes to protect these interest, some part of responsibility of what is happening in the Arab world must also be borne by our country. I don't pretend to have a neat arithmetic formula to divide responsibility - but I do know that intellectual responsibility requires us to criticize our society - if as a member of the society we know what this society has been doing abroad as a superpower.

But then of course, our society also gives us the opportunity and right to not give a F about whatever happens "abroad." Of course, these are things of "foreign affairs," discussions of which are limited to some International Relations class in college or family get-togethers on Veterans days. Of course, our society gives us the right and opportunity to care more about everything but war - its consequences on victims and deaths. Maybe that is what makes our country great.

A letter to Iraq

2005-11-03T01:53:00.000-05:00

Dear Iraq,

Right now I know that we are killing your children and have destoryed your society to the studs right and proper. I'm sorry for all of the uranium depledted rounds and missing limbs that are abound in your society. All of the death, destruction, chaos, and mayhem that my selfish imperialist-terrorizing society has created for their own desires and needs. Okay, we are illegally occupying your nation-state, but hey it could be worse. Anyway, I have to get back to REALITY-LAND now or I would stay and chat a while. What was that? You say you have no food? That our Army shot and killed your family at a check point or stole your son in the middle of the night? Well, I have no time for that. I have a "viewpoint" on those issues... I have an "opinion" about it. But, I'm too busy because I am a law student. I am living in "reality-land" where the rule of law and fancy reverse incorporation rule the day. Not the same "life and death" reality that you live. I don't have time for bullet wounds and chlorea. I have to outline for a big test of very important information here in Reality-Land. Okay, Ill talk to you later because I have to synthesize a rule now. Bye bye Iraq, write to me soon.

Fuck You and dont suffer too much!

Love always,

Conrapuntalist

Wiped off the map

2005-10-30T16:21:00.000-05:00

In his speech addressing students at a conference titled "A World Without Zionism," the Iranian President Ahmadinejad called for Israel to be wiped off the map of the world. This is not the first time that an Iranian political figure has taken such a harsh stand against Israel. Khomeni said the same thing only 25 years ago. These sort of irrational gestures really show the lack of political strategy and pragmatism in Iranian politics. Making these sort of scandelous and appalling statements is not going to solve anything - it is not going to rid the West Bank and Gaza of a brutal occupation. The only thing this statement will do is cause the Iranian's their credibility in the international arena (which they don't have anyway) and make the occupation even more brutal by giving the Israelis a rationale for severer occupation for their own "safety." All that has been done in the past five or six years (of which there isn't much) to make the cause of Palestine sincere and genuine was lost when Ahmadinejad made that statement.

But I am dumfounded more not by Ahmadinejad's statement but the sort of reaction that he got from the international press. One commentator wrote that Ahmadinejad's statement makes clear the "position of Arab leaders" which "has much less to do with Israeli occupation than with the fact that Muslim Arab leaders cannot tolerate a Jewish state in the region."

First, Iran is not an Arab country. Some extreme Sunni circles do not even consider Shiites to be Muslim. How can one be an expert on Arab mentality when one does not even know his/her geography?

Second, most Muslim leaders do not call for the destruction of Israel. Many Muslim countries have moved towards the recognition of Israel and quite a few have also normalized relation. Israel's immediate neighbors Egypt and Jordan have normalized relations while many others like Mauritania, Pakistan, Indonesia, Morocco, Tunisia, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, and Afghanistan are moving towards normalization. There are even rumors about United Arab Emirates and Libya recognizing Israel. And then there are countries like Uzbekistan, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kyrghizstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Turkey among many other, who have full normalization of relations with the Israel. I also bet that whenever an "Iraqi government" is established, it will also succumb to American pressure and recognize Israel.

My guess is that Israel will be able to normalize relations with other Muslims countries if it continues to withdraw its troops and people from occupied Palestinian lands. But I also think that as long as East Jerusalem continues to be under Israeli occupation, and as long as Israel does not withdraw its troops and people from illegal settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, it will probably not get recognition by countries like Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc. In order for Israel to get full recognition and normalize relations with all Muslim countries, it must withdraw to the pre-1967 border. I do not think that this is a difficult demand, given that no Muslim countries (with the exception of Iran - maybe) expects Israel to withdraw to the pre-1948 border under GA Resolution 181 - which would shrink the country to about 53 percent of what it occupies today.

And about the statement made by the Iranian President... please consider statements made by Ehud Barak (calling Palestinians crocodiles), Menahim Begin (referring to Palestinians as two legged beasts), Golda Meir ("there was no such thing as Palestinians. They never existed"), Chairman Heilburn ("we have to kill all Palestinians unless they are resigned to live here as slaves"), Rafael Eitan (referring to Palestinians aa cockroaches), among many other statements.

The reality is that as long as relations are not normalized (for which both sides are to be blamed), the extremes from both ends will continue to call for the destruction of the other.

Motion to Kiss My Ass

2005-10-22T07:12:00.000-04:00

One of the perks of clerking for a federal court judge is that you come across cases that remind you about the f'ed up social and political philosophy of this country - particularly the the law and order, Second Amendment, Compassionate Conservatism patches that exist throughout this country. Firstly, this guy should not have been sold a gun - given his history of violence and mental incapacitation. See Richard Simon, "Congress Passes Bill Shielding Gun Industry From Lawsuits," Los Angeles Times, Oct. 20, 2005. Secondly, this guy should not have been thrown in prison - given his motions and actions, he clearly belongs in a mental institution. Thirdly, his motion to "Kiss my Ass" should have been granted.

Washington v. Alaimo, 934 F.Supp. 1395 (S.D.Ga. 1996)

Moore, J.

On April 5, 1996, this Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this Court should not impose Rule 11 sanctions upon him for filing a motion for improper purposes. The motion which Plaintiff filed was entitled "Motion to Kiss My Ass" (Doc. 107) in which he moved "all Americans at large and one corrupt Judge Smith [to] kiss my got [sic] damn ass sorry mother fucker you." This Court gave Plaintiff until April 25, 1996, to respond and specifically warned: "Failure to comply with this Order will result in dismissal of this case." Plaintiff has appealed the show-cause order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. As the April 5 Order was not a final order, Plaintiff's appeal is an interlocutory appeal and, as such, this Court retains jurisdiction over the parties and matters in this case. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). As of the date indicated below, Plaintiff has not responded to the show-cause order. Therefore, this Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the above-captioned case for Plaintiff's complete disregard of and noncompliance with an explicit court order. Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b); Local Rule 41.1(b); see Goforth v. Owens, 766 F.2d 1533 (11th Cir.1985) (holding that district court's power to dismiss action under Rule 41(b) for failure to obey court order is inherent aspect of its authority to enforce its orders). All outstanding motions are hereby rendered MOOT.

This Court also observes that this is not the first instance in which Plaintiff has abused the civil right forum of this Court provided through 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and finds that certain restrictions, as outlined below, need to be placed upon prospective lawsuits initiated by Plaintiff in order to protect parties from abusive litigation and to protect the federal judiciary's integrity of purpose.

On March 20, 1976, Plaintiff walked into a Savannah sporting goods store and paid $149 for a 12 gauge shotgun. The next day, five Chatham County Police officers responded to a complaint from a woman on Stuyvesant street. She stated that she was afraid to sit on her back porch because someone was shooting a gun. The police officers investigated the incident and found the source of the trouble to be Plaintiff, who initially confronted the officers while on his front porch. Plaintiff then ran into his house. Two of the officers pursued him through the front door while the other three entered his house through the back door. Plaintiff could not be seen in the house and the officers began searching for him. One officer, J. Waters, happened upon a closet and soon thereafter saw the end of a shotgun barrel coming out of the darkness of the closet. Officer Waters warned the others to get back and the shotgun fired. Buckshot pellets hit Officer Waters in the head and Officer J.R. McNeely in the left hand. Plaintiff fired the gun again and the second shot hit Officer Alex Hodgson in the chest; Officer Hodgson died from the injuries sustained. Plaintiff, who had previously been acquitted of another murder charge by reason of insanity, was arrested sometime that day. (See SAVANNAH MORNING NEWS, March 22, 1976, p. 1B.)Plaintiff was convicted for the murder of Officer Hodgson and for three counts of aggravated assault. On January 24, 1977, the Superior Court of Chatham County (Cheatham, J.) sentenced Plaintiff to life imprisonment for the murder conviction (Chatham Co. Indictment No. 25162), ten years for the aggravated assault of Pat Howard (Chatham Co. Indictment No. 25163), ten years for the aggravated assault of Waters (Chatham Co. Indictment No. 25164), and ten years for the aggravated assault of McNeely (Chatham Co. Indictment No. 25165); the sentences were set to run consecutively. The Georgia State Department of Corrections committed Plaintiff to Georgia State Prison in Reidsville where he is currently serving his sentence.

Since his commitment to the state prison system, Plaintiff has become a frequent litigant within the federal courts seeking relief through the auspices of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Clerk of Court for the Superior Court of Chatham County has also informed this Court that Plaintiff is frequently suing for various forms of relief through the state court system as well. What distinguishes Plaintiff from most prisoner litigants in federal courts is that he pays his filing fee rather than submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915. It has come to the attention of this Court that Plaintiff's litigation practice is largely, if not entirely, underwritten by the Federal Treasury as he periodically receives a substantial check for veterans' disability benefits. By paying his filing fee, Plaintiff has thus far avoided the filter of the 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) frivolity review. As a result, patently frivolous lawsuits have languished in this district longer than would otherwise be warranted with other prisoner litigants.

Plaintiff has shown in his dealings with the courts in this District that he lacks the ability or will to govern his suits with the civility and order required by the Local Rules and by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. He has wasted the time of many an innocent party and he has flippantly used the resources of the judiciary with his abusive motions filing practice. In Matthew Washington v. Bobby Whitworth, et al., 6:91cv87, this Court's experience with Plaintiff began. In that case, Plaintiff filed the Complaint on November 8, 1991, and soon commenced his motion filings practice. In February 1992, he moved to change venue. Then, he initiated the trademark of his practice: the Motion to Amend Complaint. He moved to amend his complaint on March 6, 1992, on April 15, 1992, and on December 14, 1992. After a couple allowances of amendment, Judge Dudley H. Bowen, Jr., began denying Plaintiff's motions to amend. Soon thereafter he moved to disqualify Judge Bowen and began filing "Extraordinary Motions to Amend" including one which desired to add the United States Secret Service as a party.

Plaintiff began filing frivolous motions on a weekly basis and, in that relatively simple civil rights lawsuit, he ended up filing more than seventy-five pleadings, all of which required the considered attention of this Court and Judge Bowen. These motions included "Motion to Behoove an Inquisition" and "Motion for Judex Delegatus" and "Motion for Restoration of Sanity" and "Motion for Deinstitutionalization". In one instance, he indicated the recreational tilt of his litigation when he filed a "Motion for Publicity" regarding a trial which had been set for March 23, 1995, in Statesboro. At the time of trial, Plaintiff filed a "Motion to Vacate Jurisdiction" which was denied. Even after judgment as a matter of law was entered against him at the trial, Plaintiff did not perceive his case as complete. He renewed the filing of "Extraordinary Motions to Amend" and filed his appeals, fees paid, with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

After one year of motions filing after the case had been closed, this Court ordered Plaintiff to quit submitting motions in a closed case and directed the Clerk to return to Plaintiff any further pleading filed by him. Plaintiff "one-upped" the Clerk when he filed a Notice of Appeal from that order; the notice, of course, had to be placed in the case file.In Matthew Washington v. James T. Morris, et al., 4:93cv114, Plaintiff set out to sue a host of individuals, including the Superior Court judge who presided over his the Hodgson murder trial and the attorney who defended him in that trial. Plaintiff filed the complaint on May 20, 1993, and sought to amend it on June 7, 1993, July 21, 1993, July 23, 1993, November 2, 1993, November 5, 1993, December 14, 1993, December 22, 1993, January 23, 1995, March 2, 1995, March 29, 1995, and on October 20, 1995. At least one of these Motions to Amend sought to add Magistrate Judge James E. Graham as a party defendant. Plaintiff filed fifty-four pleadings in that case, all of which required the considered attention of Judge Anthony A. Alaimo or Magistrate Graham. The motions ranged from the mundane, such as "Motion for Change of Venue", to the arcane, such as "Motion for Cesset pro Cessus" and "Motion for Judex Delegatus", to the curious, such as "Motion for Nunc pro Tunc" and "Motion for Psychoanalysis", to the outlandish, such as "Motion to Impeach Judge Alaimo" and "Motion to Renounce Citizenship" and "Motion to Exhume Body of Alex Hodgson". Plaintiff also filed numerous interlocutory appeals, which required the attention and utilization of the resources of the Court of Appeals. The case was disposed of on the pleadings in Defendants' favor. Plaintiff has filed an appeal.

Plaintiff's other cases in this district demonstrate that his litigation practice continues with the same themes as described above. In Matthew Washington v. Dr. Joseph H. Owens, Jr., 6:94cv39, Plaintiff filed some ten motions to amend, moved to disqualify the undersigned judge, and also expressed his contempt for the undersigned judge by filing a "Motion to Invoke and Execute Rule 15--Retroactive Note: The Court's School Days are Over". This Court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint upon motion by the Defendant. The case currently is on appeal. In Matthew Washington v. Ronald Fountain, et al., 6:94cv120, Plaintiff has already filed thirteen motions to amend, including one which sought to add President Clinton as a party. Plaintiff also sought to disqualify the undersigned judge and again invoked the mysterious "Rule 15". The case has been reassigned to Chief Judge B. Avant Edenfield and is still pending.

In the instant case, Plaintiff has sued all of the judges and one magistrate judge from this District as well as one judge and one magistrate judge from the Middle District of Georgia. Plaintiff also unsuccessfully tried to join Judge Michael Karpf of the Superior Court of Chatham County and United States Senator Sam Nunn. His five motions to amend are overshadowed by the "Motion to Kiss My Ass" which Plaintiff filed (apparently to express his frustration with Magistrate Judge G.R. Smith's refusal to allow the addition of Judge Karpf and Senator Nunn). This case has been pending less than one year and already Plaintiff has filed three interlocutory appeals. Likewise, in Matthew Washington v. R.D. Collins, et al., 6:95cv113, Plaintiff has already filed three frivolous interlocutory appeals in a case which is only several months old. Most of Plaintiff's appeals to the Eleventh Circuit are dismissed for either lack of jurisdiction or for lack of brief in support of appeal.

In Matthew Washington v. Dr. Joseph H. Owens, 6:95cv214, Plaintiff has filed a "Motion for Skin Change Operation" in which he desired the government to fund a sex change for him. When Magistrate Judge W. Leon Barfield denied the motion, Plaintiff filed a "Motion to Impeach" the magistrate. He also unsuccessfully sought to add the undersigned judge as a party defendant.

In another case which had been originally filed in the Northern District of Georgia, 6:96cv54, Plaintiff sued the same judges as in this case and also added Ted Turner of CNN International for good measure: "Mr. Turner, a fellow Georgian, is and has violated the 'Free Press' of which he 'supposedly stands' with his cartel and CBS endeavors to do the same." Recently, he filed a "Motion for Catered Food Services" in which he complained about the prison food and moved for a court order allowing him to "receive catered food from some credible responsible business establishment preferred and paid for by Plaintiff."

These are just some examples from some of Plaintiff's recent litigation adventures. Prior to this decade, Plaintiff had a long history of litigation within this District. His recreational litigation has gone on for entirely too long and at great expense to the American taxpayer. Too many resources have been wasted and too many innocent people harassed. This Court now considers what discretion it has to prevent the future waste of judicial resources.The appellate courts have upheld orders which limited a pro se plaintiff's access to the courts. See In re Martin-Trigona, 737 F.2d 1254, 1261 (2d Cir.1984) (holding that "[f]ederal courts have both the inherent power and constitutional obligation to protect their jurisdiction from conduct which impairs their ability to carry out Article III functions"); Peck v. Hoff, 660 F.2d 371 (8th Cir.1981); Green v. Carlson, 649 F.2d 285 (5th Cir.1981). The Supreme Court has clearly recognized the validity of these judicially ordered curbs on abusive litigation. See In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 184 n. 8, 109 S.Ct. 993, 996 n. 8, 103 L.Ed.2d 158 (1989). This circuit has also recognized the power of district courts to strictly control the access which abusive litigants have to judicial resources. See Martin-Trigona v. Shaw, 986 F.2d 1384 (11th Cir.1993) (per curiam); Copeland v. Green, 949 F.2d 390 (11th Cir.1991) (per curiam); Cofield v. Alabama Public Service Commission, 936 F.2d 512 (11th Cir.1991); Procup v. Strickland, 792 F.2d 1069 (11th Cir.1986) (en banc) (per curiam).

In Procup, the Eleventh Circuit, sitting en banc, considered a district court injunction which banned an abusive prisoner litigant from filing any case unless it was submitted by an attorney admitted before the court. 792 F.2d at 1070. The Court reversed the district court's injunction but established that district courts' have considerable discretion in restricting an abusive litigant's access to the federal judiciary: "We hold that the district court's injunction was overbroad, but that the district court has authority to impose serious restrictions on Procup's bringing matters before the court without an attorney." Id. In so ruling, the Court observed:

Occasionally, a particularly abusive prisoner, taking advantage of his unique situation, will come along with a flood of claims designed to either harass those in positions of authority or to grind the wheels of the judicial system to a halt.... Every lawsuit filed, no matter how frivolous or repetitious, requires the investment of court time, whether the complaint is reviewed initially by a law clerk, a staff attorney, a magistrate, or the judge. Id. at 1072.

The Procup court, however, reversed the injunction because it found that the attorney-submission requirement could well have the effect of completely foreclosing the plaintiff's access to the courts. Id. at 1071. The court noted that, realistically, the plaintiff would have a difficult time obtaining an attorney for even a meritorious claim: "A private attorney, knowing Procup's track record, might well be unwilling to devote the time and effort necessary to sift through Procup's generally frivolous claims to see if there is one of sufficient merit to undertake legal representation. A legitimate claim could well go undiscovered." Id. This understandable reluctance on the part of attorneys of the local bar would then amount to a closing of the courthouse door for Procup and, de facto, his access to the courts would be denied. Id. "An absolute bar against a prisoner filing any suit in federal court would be patently unconstitutional." Id.

The court simply ruled that the district court had the correct intentions of curtailing the plaintiff's activity but had acted too zealously to the detriment of the plaintiff's constitutional rights: "This does not mean that the district court was incorrect in employing injunctive relief. The district court was fully justified and within its authority in entering *1400 injunctive restrictions against Procup. Such action is necessary and prudent to protect the rights of all litigants in the federal system." Id.

The Procup court further expressed its strong approval of strong litigation restrictions by stating: "There should be little doubt that the district court has the jurisdiction to protect itself against the abuses that litigants like Procup visit upon it." Id. at 1073. Further, a "court has a responsibility to prevent single litigants from unnecessarily encroaching on the judicial machinery needed by others." Id.

Indeed, though the Procup court actually reversed the district court injunction, the great weight of the opinion was spent apologizing for the reversal and explaining that district courts may do many things to curtail frivolous litigants except close the courthouse door: "Considerable discretion necessarily is reposed in the district court. Procup can be severely restricted as to what he may file and how he must behave in his applications for judicial relief. He just cannot be completely foreclosed from any access to the court." Id. (emphasis in original).

This Court finds that Plaintiff has abused the judiciary and that his abuse has lingered longer than would otherwise be tolerated from normal prisoner plaintiffs because of Plaintiff's status as a pay-to-play litigant. The time has come to take the rattle from the baby and impose some form and discipline upon Plaintiff's law practice within this and other federal courts.Accordingly, this Court hereby ENJOINS Plaintiff from filing a lawsuit in this or any other federal district court unless the following conditions are met:

1. In addition to paying the $120.00 filing fee which Plaintiff has already demonstrated the ability to pay, Plaintiff must post a $1,500.00 contempt bond with the Clerk of Court. This bond will be held by the Clerk of Court and, if Plaintiff has conducted the affairs in his case
appropriately within the realm of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, the bond will be returned to Plaintiff at the conclusion of his case.

2. A signed affidavit shall accompany his complaint in which Plaintiff swears that he has read Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and that he will abide by the tenets listed therein.

3. A photocopy of this Order shall be attached to his complaint.The Clerk is DIRECTED to return any complaint from Plaintiff not in compliance with this Order. If Plaintiff has complied with the three items above, the Clerk is DIRECTED to accept the filing fee and contempt bond and then submit the complaint, prior to filing, to the judge who will be assigned the case. The
judge or magistrate judge will then conduct a frivolity review just as if the case were filed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. If the judicial officer determines that the complaint is not frivolous, malicious, or intended to harass, then the judicial officer will allow the case to be filed and service to issue against the named defendants.

This Court is quite sure that, if the villagers who heard the boy cry "wolf" one time too many had some form of reassurance that the boy's last cry was sincere, they would have responded appropriately and he would be alive instead of being dinner for the ravenous canine. If anything, that story teaches that repetitious tomfoolery can result in disaster for the knave. This Court will not turn a deaf ear to Plaintiff's future cries. However, it will require Plaintiff to structure
his pleas for help in a more sincere manner so that the energies of the villagers are not wasted on the repeated runs up the grassy hill atop which the mischievous boy sits laughing.

SO ORDERED.

Mourning Said's death

2005-09-20T17:52:00.000-04:00

I cannot believe that the death of a man who I had never met could have raised so many emotions within me. The syntax of this language, I thought at time, was too weak to describe the emotions of loss and despair. This Friday will mark the second year anniversary of Edward Said's death.

I was introduced to Edward Said's writing a few years before his death by an English professor at my undergraduate college. I had found Said in a crucial and critical time: a few days after the tragic events of September 11, 2001. Those few months after 9/11 played a decisive role in formulating my personality and character.

I decided to buy Orientalism in which Said described the experience of the orient in occidental discourse. I began to understand the stereotypes, bigotry and lack of critical thinking in my surroundings. Through Said, I learned that cultures and people are not holy and independent, but are constructed and mutually dependent on each other's contributions to civilisation. Said was a complete man: a scholar who was qualified to comment with intellectual authority on anything, from music, literary criticism, philosophy, Spanish, Arabic, American, African and European literature, to the politics of the United States, Europe, Africa, South Asia and the "Middle East" (as he would quote for being a creation of European geographers).

Through him I learned to be critical and courageous while remaining honest and candid. I learned that as a first-generation immigrant who is part of two great cultures and languages, I could gain a critical insight into issues of power and politics. I understood the interdependency of cultures and civilisations, and the relationship between power, politics, and knowledge. Like him, I have become critical of oppression and an advocate of, as he would say, peace with justice. Edward Said was my personal hero and one of the most talented and tireless champions of Palestinian people and all of those who are oppressed.

He was a great man whom I never had the honour of meeting. I did however have the honour of reading his eloquent and moving essays and books, and listening to his fluent and poignant lectures. I have had the honour of living in the same time as him. Palestine has lost one of its most faithful sons. May God rest his sould in Heaven.

War Criminal in the city

2005-09-15T22:38:00.000-04:00

The Israeli Prime Minister and retired Major-General Ariel Sharon will be delivering his annual address at the UN General Assembly plenary tomorrow. This year's address overlaps the 23rd Annivesary of the Sabra and Shatilla massacres in which an estimated 3,500 Palestinians were killed by the Lebanese Christian Phalaginst militiamen. Conservative estimates of the massacre range around 1,000 deaths.

Sharon, acting as the Defense Minister at that time, had allowed the Phalaginst militia to enter the camp so that they can retatliate the death of the Lebanese President Bashir Gemayel. Israel accepted responsibility for that decision because it had planned to transfer the authority of Southern Lebanon to Lebanese control. Due to the international public outrage at Israel's actions, the Israeli government founded the the Kahan Commission of Inquiry to investigate the massacre.

The Commission found Israel "indirectly" responsible for the massacre. The Commission found that Sharon "bears personal responsibility" for the massacres. The government dismissed General Raful Eitan, the Army Chief of Staff, and Defense Minister Ariel Sharon was compelled to resign. The Commissions foundings can be found at the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affair's website (http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Foreign%20Relations/Israels%20Foreign%20Relations%20since%201947/1982-1984/104%20Report%20of%20the%20Commission%20of%20Inquiry%20into%20the%20e).

A few years ago, the Beljian government announced that it planned on indicting Sharon for war crimes under its universal jurisdiction laws. However, due to American and Israeli pressure and threats, the government abolished its plans. That should not stop us from voicing our opinions against his brutality. Please join thousands in protesting his address in a planned demonstration at the UN.

Below is a petition prepared by the Al-Awda group protesting Sharon's address.

WE, the undersigned, DEMAND that Ariel Sharon not be permitted to address the sixtieth regular session of the General Assembly. Sharon's refusal to abide by international law, particularly as it pertains to the right of return for Palestinian refugees, is matched only by his long career as a war criminal:

* In 1952 Ariel Sharon was appointed commander of special 101 Commando Unit which carried out raids on West Bank village of Qibya in which 69 civilians were murdered, many of them women and children.

* The massacre at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps occurred between September 16 and 18, 1982, after the Israeli invading army, then occupying Beirut and under Sharon's overall command as Israel's Defense Minister, permitted members of the Phalange and local allied militias into the camps. The over 2000 civilian victims of the massacre included infants, children, women, and elderly.

* In February 1983, a three-member official Israeli commission of inquiry charged with investigating the events, known as the Kahan Commission, named former Defense Minister Sharon as one of the individuals who "bears personal responsibility" for the Sabra and Shatila massacre.

* The Al-Aqsa Intifada started after Sharon visited the Al-Aqsa Mosque and Noble Sanctuary in Jerusalem under heavy Israeli military and police guard. The visit was a calculated step that sparked the expected resistance from the oppressed Palestinian people. Ariel Sharon continues his utter disregard for international law. His refusal to abide by scores of United Nations' resolutions addressing the Arab-Israeli conflict is legendary. Only recently, Sharon reiterated his rejection of the right of the Palestinian refugees to return to their original homes and lands. Such outright disregard for the will of the international community constitutes a grave violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the European, the American and the African Conventions on Human Rights, and the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949. It also reflects Sharon's refusal to implement UN resolution 194, which has been reaffirmed practically every year since 1948. Generally, the same position has been affirmed by the Treaty-Based UN Committees, the regional conventions on human rights and practically all human rights NGOs. We find it peculiar that the General Assembly would permit a war criminal like Ariel Sharon to address it, especially considering his explicit loathing of the UN and the collective will of the vast majority of its member states.

We also DEMAND that the General Assembly embark on enforcing its resolution No. 194. The right of the Palestinian refugees and uprooted to return to their homeland is a historical right that is guaranteed by international law. It is an individual and collective right which cannot be relegated, diminished, reduced or forfeited by any representation on behalf of the Palestinian people in any agreement or treaty. As such, the Right of Return is not substituted or affected in any way by the establishment of a Palestinian state in any form. According to international law, agreements that purport to trade away the right of refugees to return to their homes, or any other inalienable right, are illegal. The right of refugees to return has been exercised, with the support of the international community, in Kosovo, Bosnia, East Timor, Rwanda, Guatemala and many other places. Yet, it continues to be ignored and neglected in Palestine. This selective enforcement of international law and UN resolutions serves to undermine rather than strengthen efforts to build a peaceful and just world.

Bridging the gap - the transnational human emotion of love and sorrow

2005-08-26T23:06:00.000-04:00

In my previous posts, I wrote about oriental (Middle Eastern/South Asian) poetry that stems out of the genre of ghazal. Even though a similar genre does not exist in Western literature (according to my knowledge), the emotions that stem out of loosing love are nevertheless represented. They are often catagorized as love poems or poems of sorrow in English. One of my favorite of such poems is Lord Byron's "When we two parted."

When we two parted
In silence and tears,
Half broken-hearted,
To sever for years,
Pale grew thy cheek and cold,
Colder thy kiss;
Truly that hour foretold
Sorrow to this.

The dew of the morning
Sank chill on my brow
It felt like the warning
Of what I feel now.
Thy vows are all broken,
And light is thy fame:
I hear thy name spoken,
And share in its shame.

They name thee before me,
A knell to mine ear;
A shudder comes o'er me
Why wert thou so dear?
They know not I knew thee,
Who knew thee too well:
Long, long shall I rue thee
Too deeply to tell.

In secret we met
In silence I grieve
That thy heart could forget,
Thy spirit deceive.
If I should meet thee
After long years,
How should I greet thee?
With silence and tears.

This is exactly what contrapuntalism is: one day I want to read and write oriental literature, and then the next day, occidental.

APSA Human Rights Section has moved

2005-08-19T08:54:00.000-04:00

Let go people, lets click on the following link, the new website of the American Political Science Association's Human Rights Section webpage. We are trying to get Google recognition. This is one of my creations.

Also visit the Center for International Human Rights at the City University of New York. This is another one of my creations.

Also check out my paper on Human Rights in Burma that was used as a briefing paper at the 60th Session of UN Commission on Human Rights to convince member states to pass a stronger resolution condemning the human rights violations in "Myanmar."

2005-08-19T01:36:00.000-04:00

My new lover, the 5-series BMW

2005-08-19T01:13:00.000-04:00

Mauro Celotti's "Red Rose"

O Rose

2005-08-14T00:55:00.000-04:00

It is difficult to write about feelings, especially in a foreign language. Its even harder to write about them in my own native language. Sometimes the syntax of languages are either too strong or weak and don't exactly correlate with what one is feeling inside. Especially for those who do not believe in structures and norms, it is almost impossible to say something without having it misconstrued by someone.

So I will do what I always do, take the easy way out and rely on someone else's writings to express the deviant. Tonight, I will use William Blake's "The Sick Rose."

O Rose, thou art sick!
The invisible worm
That flies in the night
In the howling storm,
Has found out thy bed
Of crimson joy:
And his dark secret love
Does thy life destroy.

No one really knows what Blake was thinking when he wrote this poem, and therefore, there have been thousands of commentaries on this poem, trying to figure out its real meaning. That is impossible to do, as it is the very nature of art to not have a single meaning and directly correlate with the emotions and feelings of its reader and viewer. Some people think that the poem was written in response to syphillis. Some think that the invisible worm is a priest and the poem is about his love with a virgin. Some think that it is about a husband who is having an affair (the dark secret love) and goes off to bang some hooker "in the howling storm."

So what does this poem mean to me tonight? Tonight, the rose represents innocence, beauty, purity, perfection of soul and body, intelligence, someone whose art is so sick that she makes me create art, makes me want to write, and to borrow from Greek mythology, gives me the thumos (the push, the energy, the ambition) to be what I am today and be what I want to be tomorrow.
The worm, on the other hand, is a vile creature: disgusting, loathsome, ignoble, filthy, licentious, promiscuous, lewd, an oversexed degenerate. The worm, here, is invisible because the rose does not know about his whereabouts. The rose is so innocent, red and naive, and the worm so vile and clever, that the worm has "invisible" characteristicss. He is so invisible to this rose that he has been infecting other flowers as well.

The worm has found the rose's bed of crimson joy, her reddish love, possibly being the first worm to ever infect this rose. And now his dark secret love is destroying the rose's life. The dark refers to something that is evil, immoral, possibly, the worm's secret affair with another flower. That dark secret love has destroyed the beauty of this rose.

Perhaps the following poem, "The Secret Rose," William Butler Yeats (my favorite poet) can better supplement my thought process tonight. There is no need to comment on this poem.

Far-off, most secret, and inviolate Rose,
Enfold me in my hour of hours; where those
Who sought thee in the Holy Sepulchre,
Or in the wine-vat, dwell beyond the stir
And tumult of defeated dreams; and deep
Among pale eyelids, heavy with the sleep
Men have named beauty. Thy great leaves enfold
The ancient beards, the helms of ruby and gold
Of the crowned Magi; and the king whose eyes
Saw the pierced Hands and Rood of elder rise
In Druid vapour and make the torches dim;
Till vain frenzy awoke and he died; and him
Who met Fand walking among flaming dew
By a grey shore where the wind never blew,
And lost the world and Emer for a kiss;
And him who drove the gods out of their liss,
And till a hundred moms had flowered red
Feasted, and wept the barrows of his dead;
And the proud dreaming king who flung the crown
And sorrow away, and calling bard and clown
Dwelt among wine-stained wanderers in deep woods:
And him who sold tillage, and house, and goods,
And sought through lands and islands numberless years,
Until he found, with laughter and with tears,
A woman of so shining loveliness
That men threshed corn at midnight by a tress,
A little stolen tress. I, too, await
The hour of thy great wind of love and hate.
When shall the stars be blown about the sky,
Like the sparks blown out of a smithy, and die?
Surely thine hour has come, thy great wind blows,
Far-off, most secret, and inviolate Rose?

2005-08-14T00:47:00.000-04:00

Van Gogh's "Starry Night"

2005-08-13T23:29:00.000-04:00

Van Gogh's "Cafe Terrace at Night."

2005-08-13T23:24:00.000-04:00

A beautiful pose of Edward Said

Executive Summary

2005-08-11T23:20:00.000-04:00

My last post titled "Executive Summary" was written when I was in the stage of delirium tremens, or otherwise, drunkensess. I should have actually just left it as it was, as I was under the impression that I do some of my best work after a few drinks. Last night, however, was an exception. Maybe I had too much to drink or may there was too much on my mind. Whatever it was, whatever I wrote made no sense.

This post adds on to the last one and makes it complete. This post is the executive summary of my summer, in which I will attempt to summarize all events and happenings of this summer: emotional and physical, intellectual and unintelligent, and lastly, juvenile and sensible activities. They are ranged in the order of their priority.

The Question of Palestine

As an advocate for the human rights and dignity of the Palestinian people, I have always paid closed attention to the political happenings and human tragedy in this region. This summer’s events seemed a bit more hopeful than the previous four or five years. Sharon began to pull out of Gaza; Mahmoud Abbas (a.k.a. Abu Mazzen) seemed to gain some sort of popularity; the amount of suicide bombings against innocent Israeli citizens within the Israeli “proper” went down dramatically. Suicide bombing is reprehensible but it is a direct and, in my opinion, a consciously programmed result of years of abuse, powerlessness and despair. It has as little to do with the Arab or Muslim supposed propensity for violence as the man in the moon.

Even after all the “progress” (as the New York Times called it), the continuous and systematic suffering of the Palestinian people continued. The wall continued to be built; villages continued to be separated from their lands; the Jewish talibans will probably ruin the Palestinian olive harvest again; and so on and so forth. Remarkably though, the great mass of this heroic people seems willing to go on, without peace and without respite, bleeding, going hungry, dying day by day. They have too much dignity and confidence in the justice of their cause to submit shamefully to Israel, as their leaders have done.

Here is the Executive Summary of the Palestinian people since 1948: torture of innocent civilians, illegal detention, assasination of civilians and political figures, assualt against civilians with missiles, helicopters and jet fighters, annexation of territory, transportation of civilians from one place to another for the purpose of imprisonment, mass killing (as in Qana, Jenin, Sabra and Shatilla to mention only the most obvious), denial of rights to free passage and unimpeded civilian movement, education, medical aid, use of civilians as human shields, humiliation and mortification, punishment of families, house demolitions on a mass scale, destruction of agricultural land, expropriation of water, illegal settlements, economic pauperization, attacks on hospitals, medical workers and ambulances, destruction of the Bir Zeit library (the only Palestinian university), killing of UN personnel, construction of an illegal wall that separates Palestinian land from Palestinian villages, stealing of land by the construction of this illegal wall, blockage of Palestinians into Jerusalem's hospitals, forcing pregnant women to give birth at checkpoints, destruction of trees and water supply, and so on and so forth.

The victims of the Holocaust have made new victims. They use the greatest crime of the twentieth century to rationalize the very practices that were used against them. The Palestinians, to their bad luck, are not only the victims of this imperial and Zionist entity, but are also being persecuted by their own "brethern." Arab regimes of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt use Israel as a pawn not only quell their own local rebellions, but to also discriminate against Palestinian exiles and refugees living in their country. For instance, Palestinians in southern Lebanon are not given citizenship even though they have been living their for the past two generations. They do not have access to healthcare, education, and the most fundamental and essential needs of a human being.

The great Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish has summarized the Question of Palestine perfectly:

"Where should we go after the lost frontier
where should the birds fly after the last sky?"

Iraq: "whats so civil about war anyway?"; London; and the state of Islam in the West

Now how do I even begin to write about this. Everytime I think of this issue, I cannot stop thinking of this song by Guns n' Roses: "Civil War." True, Saddam Hussein's regime was a despicable one in every way and it deserved to be removed. Also true is the sense of anger many feel at how outlandishly cruel and despotic that regime was, and how dreadful has been the suffering of Iraq's people. But what is also true is the fact that more Iraqis have been killed as a result of the American invasion than were ever killed under Saddam. What is also true is the fact that most Iraqis will probably favor Saddam's regime over the current state of political and societal upheaval. What I find preposterous is the fact that most Americans, along with this boorish President, refuse to acknowledge these facts. This administration is so racist and biggoted that it even refuses to keep a body count of the Iraqi deaths. All Americans are concerned about, and rightly so, are the deaths of the 1500 American soldiers. There is no mention of the 120,000 Iraqi deaths. There is no expansive media coverage on a bomb explosion in Bagdhad that kills 50 people. This has become routine and Americans don't really want to read about it anymore. But when 50 people die in London, we are shaken and tear-ish, and rightly so.

In response, the electronic media has run far too many "experts" and "commentators" on terrorism, Islam, and the Muslims whose endlessly repetitious and reductive line is so hostile and so misrepresents our history, society, culture and religion that it seems that the media itself has become little more than an arm of the government. The Islamic world and its people have been scrutinized unlike any other enemy that this country has ever faced. So-called “experts” on “terrorism” and “Islam” have tried their best to label the collective Muslim populace as fundamentalists. These ex-military men, terrorism experts, and Middle East policy analysts who know no nothing about the Islamic languages and cultures, may never have seen any part of the Islamic world, and are probably too poorly educated to be experts at anything -- all of them arguing in a memorized jargon about the need to civilize Islam, and liberate the Muslims from their own shackles, while blocking our own borders and preparing ourselves for an imminent dirty bomb attack or a poison gas attack by an Muslim fundamentalist sleeper cell here on a student visa.

Anytime one turns on the TV set or flips the dial to AM radio, the Muslim is portrayed as the disrupter of Israel’s and the West’s existence, a shadow that dogs the Jews, an oil supplier who is associated with lechery and bloodthirsty dishonesty, an oversexed degenerate, a wife-beater who oppresses women, sadistic, treacherous, low, moneychanger, a colorful scoundrel, a slave trader, a camel jockey, and the most infamous of all, a terrorist, or a terrorist sympathizer. And if you get sick of the electronic media and want to go back to paper, news photos always show the Muslim in large numbers; no individuality, no personal characteristic, no experience; most pictures of him represent mass rage and misery, or irrational gestures, burning of American and Israeli flags, shooting klashinkovs in the air for no obvious reasons. Lurking behind all these images is the menace of Jihad, a fear that he will take over the world.

Books and articles are regularly published on Islam and the Arabs that represent absolutely no change over the bitter and spiteful anti-Islamic polemics of the Middle Ages. For no other religious group other than Islam is it true that virtually anything can be written or said without challenge or demurral. For instance, one “scholar” of the Arabic language appeared on the Fox News Channel last year and said: that every other word in the Arabic language has something to do with violence, and that Arab mind, as “reflected” by the language, is relentlessly flamboyant.

One personal experience: when I was taking the Long Island Rail Road into the city one day, I was approached by this woman who told me to put away my Urdu newspaper, which she referred to as Arabic. When I asked her why, she replied that because “Arabic is a controversial language.” Never mind that Arabic and Urdu are two different languages, that none of the 19 hijackers were from Pakistan, and that even Pakistan is an American ally in the “War on Terror”, the woman was so offended by my newspaper, my dark skin, an Arab nose and weird eyes, that she decided to get up and change her seat.

Thanks to the efforts of those who should be trying to promote understanding and coexistence, i.e. the electronic and news media, there is no other religious group that can be so humiliated and misrepresented as much as ours. Strange and baffling questions such as the following are asked daily: “what links the people of Middle East together?” And an expert from some academic think tank supplies the usual answer: “their hatred towards Jews, Israel, democracy, West, progress, and secularism.”

The human experience of the Muslim is never talked about in the media: His endless suffering, not being able to profit from his country’s natural resources (i.e. the Arabs and oil), being suppressed by his own governments. The media, and its pundits have never pointed that there have been, are, and will be struggles of democracy, human rights, academic, technological, and scientific progress, women rights and labor rights, and a “western” way of life in the Islamic world. We are always portrayed as a backward people, dislodged in revisionism - hoping to return to the lost glory while being inept in even managing our own societies. What, however, is not pointed out is the shameful actions of outsiders who have always put their economic and imperial interests ahead of the human rights, freedoms, and liberties of the Islamic populace.

Puppet and authoritarian regimes are put into power – who, while claiming to be democratic and representative – they are incapable of protecting their borders, sullenly reliant upon internal security forces to quell their native populations and suppress their democratic rights.

As a result of all these misconstructions of our identity, I don't know a single Muslim American who does not now feel that he or she belongs to the enemy camp, and that being in the United States at this moment provides us with an especially unpleasant experience of alienation and targeted hostility. For despite the occasional official statements saying that Islam and Muslims are not enemies of the United States, everything else about the current situation argues the exact opposite. Hundreds of young Muslim men have been picked up for questioning and, in far too many cases, detained and harassed by the police or the FBI.

The Amnesty International report released last year does an excellent job documenting incidents of racial profiling in the United States. The report begins with a quote from Rev. Charles Stovall of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. Commenting on the historical experience between law enforcement and African Americans, Rev. Stovall says, “as I have said to my Muslim and Arab friends, ‘Welcome to the front line.’” The report by Amnesty International has pointed out that racial profiling of Muslims in the United States has substantially increased since the events of September 11.

The report documents numerous incidents of harassment and profiling. One experience that I think is generic for almost every racial, religious or ethnic minority in this country (in some scale or another) is documented in the experience Mr. Ali, a resident of Denton, Texas who was pulled over on his way home from the video store. The officers told him they had stopped him because one of his lights was brighter than the other. They asked him to step out of the car and Mr. Ali complied. The officers then began to ask him whether he had any dead bodies or bombs in his vehicle, to which he responded no (in the case of Hispanics and African Americans, they would have asked about drugs or guns). They continued asking him about dead bodies and bombs and then asked to search the car. Mr. Ali protested the search. Unable to find what they were looking for, the officers arrested him for possessing a small pocketknife that was located in the pocket of his passenger side door. Mr. Ali’s case was later dropped in court.

Like stereotypes of groups by powerful members of the society have a way of effectuating into official policies with real consequences, official policies also have a way of influencing people’s perception of the group being scrutinized. Racial profiling is the most obvious example of such policy. So when a branch of the government (e.g. the Justice Department) starts telling librarians to keep an eye on the books taken out by a particular group of people, postal workers to infringe on privacy rights to get TIPS about the activities of a particular group of people, bankers to require information from people about the uses of money, it raises the level of suspicion in society – leading ordinary people without any biases to begin discriminating against people of a certain racial, religious or ethnic group in their everyday dealings. I want to end on the note that all these policies are a result of ignorance and lack of education and it is our duty, as citizens to deconstruct stereotypes about any racial, ethnic or religious group.

"We are all barbarians"

2005-08-03T14:42:00.000-04:00

Albert Camus, one of the most influential 20th century existentialist writers, noted in The Plague that boredom is the breakdown of routine and habit which causes people to think seriously of their identity. That is exactly how I have been feeling the last couple of days. Yes, I have been kept pretty busy at work, but being kept busy with things in which you have no interest in whatsoever does not prevent one from experiencing boredom. (Note the play on words, "experiencing boredom"). (Self-disclaimer: Camus’s views on the Algerian "nation" in Le Peste represent "incapacitated colonial sensibility.")

Writing is a refuge from boredom. It allows me to fantasize and invent while trying to identify myself as a result of boredom. I am able reach the end-goal of boredom – which is self identification and transformation – by doing something exciting: writing (pretty dorky, I know). All my activities this summer and all I have written about on this blog have lead to a self-transformation that cannot be classified as fictional or non-fictional, as apocryphal or authentic, and especially, as execrable or virtuous. Must we dissect and classify everything? What can be so wrong about hesitating and having second thoughts? This is exactly how this summer should be described: disordered and disorganized. Some people rationalize this sort of dilemma by saying, "oh we are young," or "it is more exciting when you are doing something out of the norm." For me, however, even these rationalizations are ways to synthesize morality with human "misbehavior." Morality, misbehavior and taboos are constructed ideas, and therefore, one should stand defiant and not be vacillated by insults for engaging in unclassified and promiscuous activities. All that I have said in this paragraph is best summarized by the man who I have criticized so much, Salman Rushdie:

"Insults are mysteries. What seems to the bystander to be the cruelest, most destructive sledgehammer of an assault, whore! slut! tart!, can leave its target undamaged, while an apparently lesser gibe, thank god you're not my child, can fatally penetrate the finest suits of armour, you're nothing to me, you're less than the dirt on the soles of my shoes, and strike directly at the heart" (from The Ground Beneath Her Feet, 1999).

Literary criticism gives me the opportunity to relate this summer experience to some work of literature. I did not need to think hard to find one. Translations by Brian Friel is perhaps the work of art that is the most relevant and irrelevant to what I have been writing about.

Translations is about British colonization of Northern Ireland. It takes place in 1833 when a corp of British Royal engineers arrive at County Donegal to conduct an Ordenance Survey of Ireland. The engineers begin to rename the Irish landscape from Gaelic to English, and when one of the engineers falls in love with an Irish woman and disappears, the lead engineer, Captain Lancey issues an order threatening to destroy the parts of the village. Lancey screams out the names of these places in English (which were previously in Gaelic), and then, ironically, these names must be translated back to Gaelic (by a native informant) for the locals. In response, Hugh, an Irish elder says the lines that define the book, "it can happen that a civilization can be imprisoned in a linguistic contour that no longer matches the landscape of fact."

I was, however, impressed by this other background and what appears to be psychopathic character by the name of Jimmy Jack, far removed from reality and overtaken by his readings of Greek mythology. At one point towards the end of the play when the engineers are threatening to destroy the village in English and the Irishmen are responding back in Gaelic, Jimmy Jack spontaneously says, "we are all barbarians." Barbarians, in Greek mythology, were not what we think of today (savages), but were outsiders, foreigners, tourists and people who did not belong where they have ended up. Jimmy Jack alludes to the fact that the Irish have become barbarians in their own homeland where their geography is being classified and identified for them by outsiders.

orientalism and native informants

2005-07-28T23:07:00.000-04:00

There is a lot of water-down stuff in the academic supermarket nowadays. It seems that even academic presses, especially American, which stood out for their emphasis on intellectual stimulus and analytical rigoristy have watered down their publications to adapt to the "average American's" expectations. Renowned academics and practitioners are being told to use smaller words and write shorter sentences so that more books can be sold on the book stands. It used to be that university presses would not even care about the vocabulary of a publication as long as the publication was supremely academic. University presses made their livings off of selling books to academic libraries of colleges and universities. Thanks to mergers and acquisitions, the new bosses of these presses want all publications to appeal to the general American public.

Because there is no real academic force to counter what is now being written about Islam and Muslims, often by Muslims themselves, it seems that anyone who has read a few books on Islam and the Islamic world can write about the threat that Islam posses to the Western world.

To name a few: some dude by the name of Schwartz who has written about the threat that Wahabbism poses to the West; Daniel Pipes, a low level pundit who writes for the New York Post; Fareed Zakaria of Newsweek who sweet talks about the lack of modernity in Islam; some Canadian dyke by the name of Irshad Manji who gets funded by the Israeli government; Faud Ajami, some hairy guy with a creepy Lebanese accent which is the only thing giving him authority over Islam; and now this new guy Reza Islan, some Santa Barbara Iranian (that should explain everything) who with a masters degree and at a young age has announced himself as a major Islamic theologian. And then lets not forget the official Pentagon spokesman who writes for the New York Times, Tom Friedman, whose comments about Muslims and Islam, if said about any other religion or people (e.g. Jews or Blacks), they would have been considered anti-Semitic and racist, respectively.

I am not proclaiming to represent the real image of Islam or Muslims in this post. Heaven knows, that given the content of my previous posts, I am not qualified to comment on decency, lest God and religion. But what I do want to point out is the lack of intellectual rigor, the disconnect with reality and objectivity, the aesthetic behavior towards history, and to summarize it all, the scandalous scholarship that is taking place in this country when it comes to Islam and Muslims. What makes it all even more disastrous is the lack of intellectual force to counter this brutish scholarship. Said's death has larger implications than just Said's death: it was the death of modesty, of critical analysis. There are many who can fill this vacuum, like Tariq Ramadan. But Ramadan and his likes are not even published here, their writings not even translated, and when Ramadan wants to visit Georgetown (as they offered him) for a fellowship, his visa is revoked and he is denied entry. He represents the challenge: a modern Islamic philosopher with modest views. He is called an extremist here while the only things extreme about him are his extremely good looks and charms.

Orientalism, a discourse that is practiced in universities and the intellectual crowds is back in full swing now. The Orient has a special place in European and Western experience. The Orient is not only adjacent to Europe; it is also the place of Europe’s greatest and richest and oldest colonies, the source of its civilizations and languages, its cultural contestant, and of its deepest and most recurring images of the Other. Anyone who teaches, writes about, or researches the Orient – and this applies whether the person is an anthropologist, sociologist, historian, or philologist – either in its specific or its general aspect, is an Orientalist, and what he or she does is Orientalism. Orientalism defines the Orient (the colonized, post-colonized, the Muslim, the Arab, the African, etc.) for the Orient. It used to be that only Western "intellectuals" had the audacity, the arrogance along with the ignorance to preach such a discourse. But now thanks to the second generation westernized children of immigrants, who now act as native informants, the discourse seems to have more validity than it did when Napoleon compiled his "Descripcion de Egypt," when Dante put Muhammad in the 7th circle of hellfire, when Silvestre de Sacy wrote about this Rational Anthropology of the Orient, when Ernest Renan created his philological laboratory of Oriental languages, when Lane, Flaubert, Caussin de Perceval, Marx and Lamartine thought for the Orient, when Benjamin Disraeli wrote about expanding Britain, when Golda Meier had the balls to say that there is no such thing as a Palestinian, when Balfour made his declaration, when the Belgians made the distinction between the Tutsis and Hutus, when de Gualle massacred in Algeria, when Mark Twain wrote about the Holy Land and pilgrimages, and when Bernard Lewis began his writings.

So when Reza Islan says that the Al-Azahr has a monopoly over Islamic theology, that Moudoudi spoke with too much authority, and then when he says that Islam is hijacked by these undemocratic religious thinkers and institutions, he should rethink.

When a million people flood the streets of Tehran to praise a fanatic in 1979, when millions of Iraqi Shiites would sacrifice their lives for al-Sistani, when hundreds of thousands flood the streets of Lahore for Moudoudi's funeral, this is what gives these fanatics and institutions authority and monopoly over Islamic theology. Isn't this democratic?

Why doesn't Reza Aslan go back to Tehran and see how many people come to greet him at the airport. If his numbers are as high as Khoemeini's, he can also then claim his monopoly over Islamic theology. But until this happens, he has no right whatsoever to call the Islamic theological institutions undemocratic. God knows, they are extremist and I wish that wasn't the case, but not undemocratic.

Summer readings and their influence on everyday behavior

2005-07-27T16:12:00.000-04:00

Many people are easily influenced by what they read, by the people who they associate with, and by things and people they admire. For instance, when Said lectured or gave interviews, he did this thing with his eyes which made the interviewer and the listener feel that Said was trying to figure out what his audience were thinking. I guess it made them feel special - that this world renowned intellectual is paying attention to their thought process. So when I was watching Said's lectures, I also began doing the same thing with my eyes. And then when I was being interviewed for this fellowship, I noticed that my interviewer blushed for a second when she caught my eyes waiting for her's as she looked back at me after looking at her notepad.

I am also easily influenced by good literature. This summer, I have been reading some Fanon. I got sick and tired of reading about violence and colonialism, and last night, decided to pick up from a book store a very short novel by this Lebanese author named Khalil Gibran.

I finished reading Gibran's The Broken Wings last night. Because I lack control over English and I do not want to run amock of what I read, and because I want my reader to experience the passion of Gibran's writing, and because I want to look at, read, and then re-write what Gibran wrote so that I can shiver like I did last night, I will quote the entire first chapter titled "Silent Sorrow" of his book.

"My neighbors, you remember the dawn of youth with pleasure and regret its passing; but I remember it like a prisoner who recalls the bars and shackles of his jail. You speak of those years between infancy and youth as a golden era free from confinement and cares, but I call those years an era of silent sorrow which dropped as a seed into my heart and grew with it and could find no outlet to the world of Knowledge and wisdom until love came and opened the heart's doors and lighted its corners. Love provided me with a tongue and tears. You people remember the gardens and orchids and the meeting places and street corners that witnessed your games and heard your innocent whispering; and I remember, too, the beautiful spot in North Lebanon. Every time I close my eyes I see those valleys full of magic and dignity and those mountains covered with glory and greatness trying to reach the sky. Every time I shut my ears to the clamor of the city I hear the murmur of the rivulets and the rustling of the branches. All those beauties which I speak of now and which I long to see, as a child longs for his mother's breast, wounded my spirit, imprisoned in the darkness of youth, as a falcon suffers in its cage when it sees a flock of birds flying freely in the spacious sky. Those valleys and hills fired my imagination, but bitter thoughts wove round my heart a net of hopelessness.

"Every time I went to the fields I returned disappointed, without understanding the cause of my disappointment. Every time I looked at the gray sky I felt my heart contract. Every time I heard the singing of the birds and babbling of the spring I suffered without understanding the reason for my suffering. It is said that unsophistication makes a man empty and that emptiness makes him carefree. It may be true among those who were born dead and who exist like frozen corpses; but the sensitive boy who feels much and knows little is the most unfortunate creature under the sun, because he is torn by two forces. the first force elevates him and shows him the beauty of existence through a cloud of dreams; the second ties him down to the earth and fills his eyes with dust and overpowers him with fears and darkness.

"Solitude has soft, silky hands, but with strong fingers it grasps the heart and makes it ache with sorrow. Solitude is the ally of sorrow as well as a companion of spiritual exaltation.

"The boy's soul undergoing the buffeting of sorrow is like a white lily just unfolding. It trembles before the breeze and opens its heart to daybreak and folds its leaves back when the shadow of night comes. If that boy does not have diversion or friends or companions in his games his life will be like a narrow prison in which he sees nothing but spiderwebs and hears nothing but the crawling of insects.

"That sorrow which obsessed me during my youth was not caused by lack of amusement, because I could have had it; neither from lack of friends, because I could have found them. That sorrow was caused by an inward ailment which made me love solitude. It killed in me the inclination for games and amusement. It removed from my shoulders the wings of youth and made me like a pong of water between mountains which reflects in its calm surface the shadows of ghosts and the colors of clouds and trees, but cannot find an outlet by which to pass singing to the sea.

"Thus was my life before I attained the age of eighteen. That year is like a mountain peak in my life, for it awakened knowledge in me and made me understand the vicissitudes of mankind. In that year I was reborn and unless a person is born again his life will remain like a blank sheet in the book of existence. In that year, I saw the angels of heaven looking at me through the eyes of a beautiful woman. I also saw the devils of hell raging in the heart of an evil man. He who does not see the angels and devils in the beauty and malice of life will be far removed from knowledge, and his spirit will be empty of affection.

Did you shiver at all while you were reading it? What exactly did you think of when you were reading it? Either you felt at the age of eighteen exactly what this poor boy is feeling, or either you regret the fact that you did not feel this way at the age of eighteen. So, to those people who I bother late at night, please don't think I do so to annoy you or to have a conversation with you. I do so because I have just read what I have written above, and reading such things make the nights more interesting.

So this summer's experience is being shaped by what I have been reading. I want to feel like that boy every night.

I have only come across a handful of passages of the likes that I have quoted above. Another one comes to my mind, from Great Expectations by Charles Dickens. It may make me look like a dork that I have memorized this passage... it probably is better than Gibran's:

"Out of my thoughts! You are part of my existence, part of myself. You have been in every line I have ever read, since I first came here, the rough common boy whose poor heart you wounded even then. You have been in every prospect I have ever seen since - on the river, on the sails of the ships, on the marshes, in the clouds, in the light, in the darkness, in the wind, in the woods, in the sea, in the streets. You have been the embodiment of every graceful fancy that my mind has ever become acquainted with. The stones of which the strongest London buildings are made, are not more real, or more impossible to be displaced by your hands, than your presence and influence have been to me, there and everywhere, and will be. Estella, to the last hour of my life, you cannot choose but remain part of my character, part of the little good in me, part of the evil. But, in this separation I associate you only with the good, and I will faithfully hold you to that always, for you must have done me far more good than harm, let me feel now what sharp distress I may."

And then, Estella let him feel the distress that Pip wanted not to feel.

Edward Said

2005-07-23T17:39:00.000-04:00

A collage of Edward Said that I created after his death

Wine and Empire, Gitmo and feeling sick

2005-07-22T10:38:00.000-04:00

Wine makes me want to think while beer makes me cheerish. Wine is for writing poetry, for good love-making, while beer is for being rowdy, and lets leave it at that. So I had a few glasses of wine last night and couldn't help but think of what has been happening in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine - the age of modern empires.

Every modern empire has never been solely held together by imperial powers with only the advances of military power and technology. Empires are run by military power, and also, along with what activates that power, puts it to use and then reinforces it with daily practices of domination, conviction, and authority. Britain ruled the vast territories of India, from eastern Afghanistan to Dhaka, from Kashmir to Karachi, with only a few thousand colonial officers and a few more thousand troops, many of them Indian. France did the same in North Africa and Indochina, the Dutch in Indonesia, the Portuguese and Belgians in Africa. And now America continues to do the same in Iraq and Afghanistan while Israel expands its "borders" to include Jerusalem and the Palestinian proper. The key element is imperial perspective, that way of looking at a distant foreign reality by subordinating it to one's gaze, constructing its history from one's own point of view, seeing its people as subjects whose fate is to be decided not by them but by what distant administrators think is best for them: we know civilizing South Asia is good for the Indian subcontinent, we know colonizing Africa will only better Africa, we know they cannot rule for themselves so we must rule for them, we know that "liberating" Iraq from Saddam's shackles is good for Iraqis, we made a heaven out of desert in Palestine, and so on and so forth. From such willful perspectives actual ideas develop, including the theory that imperialism is a benign and necessary thing.

Flipping through this week's edition of US News and World Report, I noticed the density of this digest and was suprised to see the amount of news covered in this magazine. I noted that one of the stories on like page number 3 or something talked about the abuse of "detainees" in US custody at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The New Yorker also ran a story a couple of weeks ago reporting the psychological and mental abuse and torture being inflicted on these alleged terrorist and "enemy combatants." Sitting about 1,000 miles from Gitmo in an airconditioned office building, returning to a nice house with a swimming pool, being able to flash money, ride a nice car and live a comfortable life, while only a 1,000 miles away someone has been indefinately detained, tortured, with no rights under any international law or domestic law: these are the things that good wine makes you think of. Yes, these are incoherent thoughts with no concluding statements or punchlines, but they are only thoughts resulting from free-thinking, not pieces of advocacy or literature. These are the very sort of thoughts which make you feel sick to your stomach. Today will be, therefore, a bad day. Tonight I will drink beer and not wine.

Rushdie's/Friedman's Fatwa

2005-07-18T17:19:00.000-04:00

Quite a few people have approached and asked, "what exactly does "contrapuntalism" mean and why have I chosen such a geeky and nerdy title for my blog. This blog attempts to clarify such questions. The title was not chosen with hopes of meeting people on-line... as there is no need to complicate things even more. It was chosen as an attempt to define a personality, full with conflicts, that can be simply defined as hypocritical, womanizing, pompous-ish, but can also be categorized in the likes of Said, Vico and Adorno. One should not look at it aesthetically, as either hypocritical and "intellectual," one should not look at as a womanizer at night (sometimes also daytimes) and a deep thinker at night, but should look it, as all of that, all-together. That is exactly the essence of contrapuntalism: a musical metaphor borrowed to identify the true identity of a person that is often contradicting.

In a conversation over lunch, one of my coworkers said that she read a piece about rapes in Pakistan and India. And then she says that "the Dell tech support guy from India probably had his sister's blood over his c**k." I was a bit surprised to hear that at first.

When she made that comment about the rapes, I also thought about Rushdie and Islam, as it was his op-ed in the New York Times that she was referring to.

Since I have written the word "Islam" in this blog, I should preface by first noting how grotesque I am to see the bombings that took place in London last week. These acts of terror do not represent the true image of Islam and are only acts of a few religious fanatics who, while claiming to be Muslims and trying to re-unite the "ummah," have stained the reputation of our religion. I almost feel, or am made to feel, that as a Muslim in the US, it is my obligation to condemn any act of terror and violence that is committed in the name of Islam (sometimes even before it has been determined that it was committed by Muslims in the name of Islam).

So now I turned to Rushdie, a native informant (because that is exactly what he is), so low and treacherous that instead of trying to help soothe the Islam-West relations, his writings have strained the image of Islam so much that the West thinks of Islam in the same manner that she thought of it at lunch. But, contrapuntally thinking, he is also a very good writer, a great intellectual, whose critique of postcolonial societies ranks him in the likes of Fanon and Homi Baba.

Rushdies's and Friedman's op-ed pieces in the past week's Times has lead me to comment on their and the West's expectations of Islam and Muslims. Friedman, who is also a renowned Orientalist like Rushdie, who speaks about Islam and the Muslim world with almost as much authority as a radical Mullah in Pakistan issuing Fatwas, expects the Muslim world to condemn, apologize and take responsibility for these acts of terror that have shaken the Western world. Although Friedman is correct to point out that the Islamic world has not unequivocally condemned the terrorist bombings of 9/11, Madrid, and now London, I think that it is foolish to expect such an apology or condemnation. Even before the London authorities had begun a serious investigation (as it is still too dangerous to even go into some of the tunnels), Friedman already had declared that the bombing was orchestrated by Islamic fundamentalists. Moreover, he expects an apology from an entire Muslim populace, which he assumes speaks with one voice, even before actual knowledge of the perpetrator’s religion/ethnicity. Its almost as preposterous as a commentator on al-Jazeera expecting an apology from Christians of Mexico and Canada for the killings in Iraq (probably averaging to more than 100 a week) which the Arab commentator holds Bush/Blair responsible for.

Friedman points to the fatwa against Rushdie issued by the Iranian fanatic and criticizes Islamic clerics for not issuing a similar fatwa against bin-Laden. Even though Friedman's assumption is baseless because the Muslim world (maybe not in its' entirety - as no society or culture can really speak in entirety) did condemn the bombings and perpetuators of the 9/11 and Madrid attacks, he fails to see that there has also been a backlash by Muslim scholars and intellectuals against Khomeini's Fatwa. More and more Muslim scholars and intellectuals now see fatwas as political tools employed by fanatics to tame and control Muslims. Asking clerics to issue a fatwa against someone who has issued a fatwa (bin-Laden's fatwa against the US) only starts fatwa wars. I am glad that these scholars think with a cooler head than Friedman's.

Friedman's and Rushdie's articles demonstrate their continued failure to understand the Islamic world. They dub all Muslims as one, always speaking with one mind and always supporting any act of terror against Western civilization. Friedman declares that the action or inaction of a few fundamentalists clerics represent the feelings of the "Muslim world" while ignoring the outrage against the 9/11, Madrid and London bombings on the streets of Cairo, Karachi and Jakarta. Therefore, this is not only a Muslim problem, but also Friedman's (and other Orientalist's) problem: their blind arrogance and lack of understanding of the "Muslim world." Rushdie, on the other hand, classifies all Pakistani and Indian Muslim men as one, equally anti-women's rights, equally barbaric.

Isn't this a perfect example of contrapuntalism? Beginning with the most filthiest of thoughts which I have not written here and ending with my thoughts of Rushdie and Friedman - which were provoked by her disagreeable but thought-provoking comment.

"The Contrapunutalist"

2005-07-15T16:22:00.000-04:00

This phrase is borrowed from the writings of a person who has had a deep influence over my political and intellecutal upbringing. In Culture and Imperialism, Edward W. Said writes, "morality begins with [the intellectual's] activity." In "The Public Role of Writers and Intellectuals" Said discusses in detail the sort of activity that intellectuals should engage in. According to Said, writers and intellectuals should behave "contrapuntally" and produce "hybrid cultural work[s]". Said, himself, proves to be an example of such an intellectual. For instance, he creatively uses "contrapuntalism," a musical metaphor, to show the central connection that exists between opposing values, when two melodies exchange registers in relation to each other, when otherwise disparate social practices such as culture and empire, history and the present, and the Orient and Occident cross paths. Said writes, "[W]e must be able to think through and interpret together experiences that are discrepant, each with its particular agenda and pace of development, its own internal formations, its internal coherence and system of external relationships, all of them co-existing and interacting with others" (36).