Work Your Brain — 09/04/06

Women’s Rights

• Class warfare at Starbucks — lambert @ CorrenteWire writes about how class warfare starts over breast milk. Companies are far more likely to be accomodating to executive mothers who need breaks during the day to pump breast milk, but the women who work in the stores and “on the line” have to “barricade themselves in small restrooms intended for customers, counting the minutes left in their breaks.” There’s a lot of pressure to breast-feed in this day and age, but it’s easy to get discouraged and give up under less than ideal conditions.
• A Mystery From the Time When Abortion Was Illegal and Dangerous — olvlzl @ ECHIDNE OF THE SNAKES remembers a horrible, deadly practice from the pre-Roe era — infanticide.
  

  The woman who owned the trunk was in her 60s in 1983. The papers say she was called a “pillar of the community” when she lived in the area. People who remembered her said that at the time the babies had been killed she often appeared to be pregnant but she never had children. The authorities found her but she wouldn’t say anything about the trunk. I don’ t know of any legal pressure put on her to talk. The fact that there were five corpses of infants wrapped in newspapers from different years certainly suggests serial infanticide, not a misdemeanor in anyone’s book.

More

Tags: Starbucks, Women's Rights, breastfeeding, class warfare, abortion, baby snuffer, infancticide, Islamofascism, propaganda, War on Terror, WWII, Osama bin Laden, Donald Rumsfeld, Iraq, Domino Theory, Hitler, whistleblowers, Russell Tice, Defense Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency, Department of Justice, 101st Fighting Keyboarders, Fox News, David Warren, Debbie Schussel, Kathleen Parker, Mark Steyn, Glenn Greenwald, hypocrisy

Work Your Brain — 09/02/06

First Some Fun

• Thursday Thirteen #3 — Baggage @ Baggage That Goes With Mine wrote thirteen reasons why the internet is better than real life. This is my favorite.
  

  11. On the internet, you can pop into a forum or a blog and tell a person that their beliefs are dumb, they should be breastfeeding, they should never co-sleep, they should divorce their husband, they should shave their legs, and they should stop wearing mom jeans. In real life, people would punch you in the face.

In Memory Of Katrina

• But you can keep them for the birds and bees — Mac @ PeskyApostrophe wonders about all of that Katrina aid money the U.S. asked for and got from other countries last year. She comes to the same conclusion I did.
  

  I’m appalled at a variety of things when it comes to the Katrina rebuilding effort and FEMA’s role in it all, but this is a whole new level of incompetence. As part of my new job, I am now involved in grant-writing. In a good portion of grants, the grantee expects a report as to how the money was used. While I’m sure these gifts did not come with any reporting requirements, if one of our grantees found out their money had been either wasted or didn’t got to the program for which it was intended that would pretty much guarantee they’d never give money to us again. And you have to wonder if, should another emergency situation arise, these countries would think twice about giving aid money to the U.S. if we’re not going to use it and use it wisely.

• First the Flood, Now the Fight — Spencer S. Hsu @ WashingtonPost.com wrote a special report on the butting of heads between FEMA and state and city officials in the rebuilding of the Gulf States and New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. FEMA swears it’s not trying to be difficult but the process seems to be designed to wear down those requesting help until they just give up and either take what little they’ve been given, which isn’t much if anything.
  

  Through hundreds of such disputes large and small, the most costly disaster in U.S. history is fast becoming its most contentious, with appeals and disputes worth nearly a billion dollars bogging down repairs of critical public systems and delaying the return of residents.

  Current and former officials at all levels blame FEMA workers’ inexperience with eligibility rules, weaknesses in U.S. disaster laws and inconsistent treatment by Congress for much of the wrangling. The huge scale of the storm and honest disagreement over whether federal or local taxpayers should pay the tab add to the conflict.

  “Disasters should be difficult to declare. . . . But once you get them, FEMA should not worry about cutting costs,” said Daniel A. Craig, who stepped down in October as head of FEMA’s recovery division and is now consulting for New Orleans. “Public entities are eligible for everything they have lost due to the disaster. It is not up to FEMA to cut corners or makes sure money is saved.”

  Gil H. Jamieson, FEMA’s deputy director for Gulf Coast recovery, agreed that “we’re in this to rebuild the city” and added: “We are not in it to delay for the sake of delay. Are there folks who sometimes hose it up? Absolutely. But I think we’re doing a good job of helping it recover.”

  The disputes come as the costliest part of the recovery begins: restoring water, power, roads, bridges, schools and other public facilities along the Gulf Coast. Agency veterans said the spending will have more impact on the physical rebuilding of the Gulf area than anything else FEMA does over the next decade, possibly eclipsing its role in aiding individual victims of the storm.

  The Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans, for instance, sustained $446 million in storm losses, said Executive Director Marcia St. Martin. But FEMA has committed just $113 million so far.

  FEMA notes that New Orleans promised U.S. environmental regulators $640 million in repairs before Katrina, and that the antiquated system is too big for the Crescent City’s reduced population.

  “That’s what makes a city — if you don’t have water, sewer and drainage, you don’t have a city,” lamented Robert Jackson, spokesman for the sewer board. “The money so far only scratches the surface of the devastation.

  Hat Tip: Susie @ Suburban Guerrilla

More

Tags: Thursday Thirteen, Internet, Hurricane Katrina, FEMA, aid money, Gil H. Jamieson, Daniel A. Craig, Gulf Coast recovery, New Orleans, Islamofascism, George W. Bush, Muslims, women in the media, Support the Troops, defense appropriation bill, Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center, Iraq, Afghanistan, Congress, Pentagon, Lower 9th Ward, National Hurricane Canter, 9/11, Max Mayfield, Osama bin Laden, Hezbollah, terrorism, Ann Jones, Taliban, NATO, Christians, American Dream, Martin Niemoller, Germany, Nazis, Rocky Anderson, Utah, Salt Lake Tribune, patriotism, lie, Walter Jones, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, Caddam Hussein, Donald Rumsfeld

A Fear To Give

Humanitarian Aid Charities collecting for Lebanon have run into difficulties collecting in the United States. It’s not that there’s a lack of desire to give, but it turns out there’s a fear to give…apparently, Americans are a little afraid of what their government might have to say if they donate…because after all the NSA is watching and what if you accidently donate to the wrong charity and your name ends up in a database somewhere listing you as a supporter of terrorists? Remember, if you’re doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about.

Some people want to get around that by donating goods, but this complicates matters because it’s expensive to the charities — goods have to be sorted by people which takes time and shipped which also takes time …and also costs the charity money…

Charities prefer that people send money rather than food, medicine or other goods, because in-kind donations force the charities to pay for shipping, delay the arrival of the aid, and saddle relief workers with the task of sorting and distributing items that may not be needed.

The problem, according to relief groups, is that many people who are inclined to write checks for emergency aid and reconstruction in Lebanon are afraid of ending up in some government database of suspected supporters of terrorism.

Arab American leaders say this is one of the unintended consequences of the U.S. government’s crackdown on charities run by Muslims. Though aimed at cutting off illicit funding for terrorist groups, the crackdown has complicated legitimate humanitarian relief efforts in Lebanon, Gaza and the West Bank.

“Dozens of people have approached me. They want to help, they want to send money to buy medicine, and they’re afraid of the government reaction to their contribution,” said Nihad Awad, executive director of the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations. “Some do it anyway. They can’t sit idly. But they worry that one day they’ll hear a knock on the door.”

CAIR, which is one of the country’s largest Muslim organizations, reluctantly is encouraging donations of goods, on the grounds that they are better than nothing. Its Web site, http://www.cair-net.org , lists needed items, such as rice, sugar and cooking oil, along with detailed instructions on how to pack and send them.

“We’re forced to go the least effective route, which is sending actual relief supplies, because of the restrictions on, and the problems associated with, sending financial relief to the Middle East,” CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper said. “If you send lentils, at least no one can accuse you of supporting terrorism.”

Some other groups, such as the Arab American Institute, are taking the opposite tack, recommending against in-kind donations.

“We’ve been encouraged not to do that by the Lebanese Embassy and others — not to send goods, because it’s inefficient and it takes money to sort it out and decide what to do with it. What’s needed is cash so people on the ground can buy what they need, when they need it,” said James J. Zogby, president of the institute, a Washington-based advocacy group.

[…]

“In the context of the NSA monitoring everything under the sun, people are afraid,” he said, referring to the National Security Agency’s monitoring of international phone calls and e-mails. He added that he has repeatedly urged U.S. officials to publish a list of legitimate charities, to no avail.

Since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the U.S. government has shut down three major U.S.-based charities for allegedly funneling support to terrorists, and it has designated more than 40 charities internationally as terrorist financiers. Last week, the Treasury Department barred U.S. citizens from contributing to two more groups: the Philippine and Indonesian branches of the Saudi Arabia-based International Islamic Relief Organization.

Treasury Department spokeswoman Molly Millerwise said that the department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control maintains a “one-stop shopping” list of banned entities, known as the Specially Designated Nationals List, on its Web site, http://www.treasury.gov/ofac .

But she said the department has declined to produce a list of approved charities in the Middle East “for two reasons: No. 1, any charity that we deemed clean, we could not guarantee that it would always remain so. And No. 2, it would put the government in the position of playing favorites.”

[…]

” United Jewish Communities, an umbrella organization for 155 Jewish charities across the country, announced last week that it will raise at least $300 million in emergency aid for Israel. The Jewish Federation of Greater Washington alone intends to raise $10 million toward that goal.

By comparison, the flow of private U.S. donations for humanitarian aid in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories is a mere trickle, estimated by relief groups at a few million dollars. Donors who fear giving to Muslim charities can contribute to the International Committee of the Red Cross or groups such as CARE and Mercy Corps — large, international relief groups that are the major conduit of such aid.

Laila Al-Qatami, a spokeswoman for the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, said the organization has decided to funnel its Lebanon relief contributions through Mercy Corps, an Oregon-based group that she pointedly noted “is not an Islamic charity.”

But some Muslim groups are intent on proving that they, too, can collect money and distribute it without problems.

Ziad J. Asali, a retired physician in Illinois who heads the American Task Force on Palestine, said his group is giving $20,000 each to Makassed Hospital in Jerusalem and St. Luke’s Hospital in the West Bank city of Nablus. After consulting with the State Department, he said, the task force decided to pay the bills for medical supplies that the hospitals order from their regular suppliers. [“Muslim Charities Say Fear Is Damming Flow of Money” (WashingtonPost.com)]

How free do you feel now? Free to feel as compassionate as you want to whomever you want? You can’t even write a check to help someone without worrying that you might wind up on the wrong side of an interrogation table one day under the current Administration’s game plan…

Tags: Humanitarian Aid, Lebanon, Arab, charity, spying on Americans, Treasury Department, United Jewish Communities, CAIR, Arab American Institute, NSA, International Islamic Relief Organization, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, American Task Force on Palestine, State Department

comments See also in Politics & Causes, In the News, The World, Featured, The Middle East

Whatever Happened To “Know Thy Enemy”?

Late last week the following exerpt was going around the liberal blogosphere as more evidence of President Bush’s cluelessness from the White House:

A year after his “Axis of Evil” speech before the U.S. Congress, President Bush met with three Iraqi Americans, one of whom became postwar Iraq’s first representative to the United States. The three described what they thought would be the political situation after the fall of Saddam Hussein. During their conversation with the President, Galbraith claims, it became apparent to them that Bush was unfamiliar with the distinction between Sunnis and Shiites.

Galbraith reports that the three of them spent some time explaining to Bush that there are two different sects in Islam–to which the President allegedly responded, “I thought the Iraqis were Muslims!” [“Ambassador claims shortly before invasion, Bush didn’t know there were two sects of Islam” (The Raw Story)]

And while I do have to admit, that alone is very scary, but it’s almost forgivable because really how many Americans knew there were Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq before the invasion?  Heck, recent studies show many of us can’t point to the country on a map.

Then again, he is the President and at the very least I’d have expected someone at the White House to have briefed him on that. It’s almost like watching Barry Bostwick on “Spin City” without the benefit of the excellent writers or at the very least Michael J. Fox or Charlie Sheen to come to the rescue.

Anyway, what bothers me is that it wasn’t just that Bush wasn’t aware that there is more than one sect of  Islam in Iraq.  It’s that the whole Bush Administration didn’t know much at all about Iraq and didn’t seem all that interested in getting informed ahead of time.  That seems very irresponsible.

“From the president and the vice president down through the neoconservatives at the Pentagon, there was a belief that Iraq was a blank slate on which the United States could impose its vision of a pluralistic democratic society,” said Galbraith. “The arrogance came in the form of a belief that this could be accomplished with minimal effort and planning by the United States and that it was not important to know something about Iraq.”

The Bush Administration’s aims when it invaded Iraq in March 2003 were to bring it democracy and transform the Middle East. Instead, Iraq has reverted to its three constituent components: a pro-western Kurdistan, an Iran-dominated Shiite theocracy in the south, and a chaotic Sunni Arab region in the center.

Galbraith argues that because the new Iraq was never a voluntary creation of its people–but rather held together by force–America’s ongoing attempt to preserve a unified nation is guaranteed to fail, especially since it’s divided into three different entities.

“You can’t have a national unity government when there is no nation, no unity, and no government,” said Galbraith. “Rather than trying to preserve or hold together a unified Iraq, the U.S. must accept the reality of Iraq’s breakup and work with the Shiites, Kurds, and Sunni Arabs to strengthen the already semi-independent regions.”

Galbraith further argues that the invasion of Iraq destabilized the Middle East while inadvertently strengthening Iran. One of the administration’s intentions in invading Iraq was to undermine Iran, but instead, the Iraqi occupation has given Tehran one of its greatest strategic triumphs in the last four centuries.

Once considered to be Iraq’s worst enemy, Iran has now created, financed and armed the Shiite Islamic movements within southern Iraq. Since the Iraqi Parliamentary elections of 2005, the Shiites have made considerable political gains and now have substantial influence over the country’s U.S.-created military, its police, and the central government in Baghdad. In addition, Iraq is developing economic ties with Iran that Galbraith believes could soon link the two countries’ strategic oil supplies.

Galbraith says that, “thanks to George W. Bush, Iran today has no closer ally in the world than the Iraq of the Ayatollahs.” As a result, he argues, sending U.S. forces into Iraq, has in effect, made them hostage to Iran and its Iraqi Shiite allies and left the U.S. without a viable military option to halt Iran’s drive to obtain nuclear weapons.

[…]Galbraith fears the United States may have lost the war on the very day it took Baghdad. “The American servicemen and women who took Baghdad were professionals–disciplined, courteous, and task-oriented,” said Galbraith. “Unfortunately, their political masters were so focused on making the case for war, so keen to vanquish their political foes at home, felt certain that Iraqis would embrace American-style democracy, yet they were so blinded by their own ideology that they failed to plan for the most obvious tasks following military victory.”

Galbraith believes that the Bush Administration’s effort will only leave the U.S. with an open-ended commitment in circumstances of uncontrollable turmoil. In the end, he believes, America’s most important objective is to avoid a worsening civil war.

“There is no easy exit from Iraq,” said Galbraith. “The alternative, however is to continue the present strategy of trying to build national institutions-displaced in the 2003 invasion-but how can you do that where this now is no longer an existing nation?”  [“Ambassador claims shortly before invasion, Bush didn’t know there were two sects of Islam” (The Raw Story)]

I always thought that “know thy enemy” was supposed to be one of the rules of warfare.  Mind you, I’m just a pacifist.  Maybe I don’t understand.

Tags: Iraq, George W. Bush, Peter Galbraith, Spin City, Islam, Sunnis, Shiites

Afghan Could Die For Christianity

Imagine living in a country where you cannot choose what god you want to worship or how you wish to worship or even if you wish to worship. Imagine living in a country where making that very choice could mean life or death. Imagine a country where owning a Bible or a Koran or a Torah could be a crime in itself. Imagine living in a country where you are considered a traitor or mentally ill if you convert to another system of belief.

KABUL, Afghanistan, March 20, 2006 — Despite the overthrow of the fundamentalist Taliban government and the presence of 22,500 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, a man who converted to Christianity is being prosecuted in Kabul, and a judge said Sunday that if convicted, he faces the death penalty.

Abdul Rahman, who is in his 40s, says he converted to Christianity 16 years ago while working as an aid worker helping Afghan refugees in Pakistan.

Relatives denounced him as a convert during a custody battle over his children, and he was arrested last month. The prosecutor says Rahman was found with a Bible.

[…]

Presiding judge Ansarullah Mawlazezadah tells ABC News a medical team was checking the defendant, since the team suspects insanity caused Rahman to reject Islam.

“We want to know that the doctors have given him a green light on his mental state, because he is not normal when he talks,” says the judge.

The post-Taliban constitution recognizes Islam as Afghanistan’s religion, and decrees that Islam’s Sharia law applies when a case is not covered by specific legislation. The prosecutor says under Sharia law, Abdul Rahman must die.

The judge, however, holds hopes for a solution.

“We will ask him if he has changed his mind about being a Christian,” Mawlazezadah says. “If he has, we will forgive him, because Islam is a religion of tolerance.”[“Afghan Faces Death Penalty For Converting To Christianity” (ABC News)]

When I look at my bookshelf with it’s dusty copies of a a variety of Bibles, including the Morman version, a book on Wiccan philosophies, several books of Eastern philosophers recommended by my late step-grandmother, and a growing interest in spiritualism, I wonder how I’d be preceived if I lived in such a country. After all, I certainly have questions about the church, about all churches, really.

I’m grateful I live in a country where I’m still free to explore my spirituality and hope it stays that way despite the religious-right’s recent attempts to take over.

However, I’m saddened that all these years after liberating Afghanistan, they really aren’t all that free. We’ve just changed the names of the people in charge.

Tags: Faith, God, Christian Zealots, Islam, Afghanistan

Will The Real Iraq Constitution Draft Please Stand Up?

Riverbend at Baghdad Burning offers a practicing Muslim woman’s point-of-view of the draft of the new Iraq Constitution as well as pointing out that there doesn’t seem to be just one version of it floating around. Aparently even the English version printed in The New York Times doesn’t match any of the Arabic versions. This of course begs the question as to what Iraqis think they’re voting for next month.

It was during the online search for the *real* draft constitution that the first problem with the document hit me. There are, as far as I can tell, three different versions. There are two different Arabic versions and the draft constitution translated to English in the New York Times a few weeks ago differs from them both. I wish I could understand the Kurdish version- I wonder if that is different too. The differences aren’t huge- some missing clauses or articles. Then again, this is a constitution- not a blog… one would think precision is a must.

Tags: Iraq, politics, Islam

More On The Decline of Women’s Rights in Iraq

Thanks to brilliant at breakfast for the link to the following first hand account of one woman’s observations on the decline of women’s rights in Iraq since the occupation began. Clearly, this is a step backward for the women of Iraq. This is what Bush bragged about freeing the Afghanistani women from. Why isn’t more being done to protect the women of Iraq?

Across the country, a steady clampdown on women’s rights has been going unreported and unchecked by the government. Islamic terrorism is killing and injuring Iraqi women daily, employing among other weapons, acid attacks.

My women’s rights group, the Organisation of Women’s Freedom in Iraq, has been documenting part of the upsurge in violence against women. In March this year, for example, followers of the Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr targeted an outing of students from Basra University. Playing football and listening to music, the mixed group was attacked in Basra Public Park. One male student was killed trying to defend his female friends against Islamists who literally tore the women’s clothes off their bodies. Sadr’s men photographed the dishevelled, half-dressed women, and told them that their parents would receive the photos if they didn’t refrain in future from “immoral” behaviour.

More widely, professional women have been deliberately targeted and killed - notably in the city of Mosul - and, recently, anti-women Islamists in Baghdad have taken to throwing acid in women’s faces and on to their uncovered legs.

So-called “honour killings” are rife, as is the kidnapping and rape of women. Beheadings have occurred and women have been sold into sexual servitude. When I was in Baghdad a few months ago, I couldn’t go anywhere without a bodyguard. The sense of danger and threat was tangible.

Islamist repression against women is a campaign of “moral” terror. Leaflets, graffiti and verbal warnings in their thousands warn women against going out unveiled, against putting on make-up, and against shaking hands or mixing with men. Female doctors have been prevented from treating male patients, and male doctors warned not to attend to women.

This is a recipe for future gender enslavement, second-class citizenship and ignorance. Thousands of female university students have now given up their studies to protect themselves against Islamist threats.

Islamist hostility is contagious and echoed daily in high-level political debate. Currently there is a drive over the “right” of men to have four wives, to make divorce a male preserve and for custody of children to be given to men only. Even women on Iraq’s National Assembly - the country’s parliament - have been calling for resolutions to allow for the beating of women by their guardians (males relatives, such as husbands or fathers).

This is all the outcome of the occupation of Iraq. This has been pursued under the name of liberation, but what we actually see is women increasingly losing their freedom, while political Islamists feel free to terrorise them. The Islamicists pour into this invaded, so-called Muslim land in order, they say, to liberate it; but in reality, neither the US nor the Islamists are our liberators. They both really fight for power and influence in Iraq and in the region. [“Houzan Mahmoud: Iraq must reject a constitution that enslaves women”]

Tags: Women's Rights, Iraq, Afghanistan, Islam

Iraq Heads Back to the Dark Ages for Women’s Rights

Remember how excited we were when we went into Afghanistan and brought rights to women, made it possible for little girls to go to school, and women to vote. I think Bush might have bragged as much about how glorious it was to stop the religious control of women that the Taliban had as he over-related everything to 9/11.

And yet…the same cannot be said to be true of the conditions in Iraq, though Bush certainly made a big deal about women voting in Iraq and the number of women elected to office.

Here’s a little history lesson for you: In 1970, Saddam’s secular Baath party changed the constitution to declare all men and women equal under the law. Between 1970 and March 2003, women in Iraq enjoyed more rights, than women in the surrounding Arab countries.

I’m not saying Saddam wasn’t a bad man. I’d never say that. He did some pretty nasty, evil things, but he also did more for women’s rights in the Middle East than can be said even of the current temporary regime.

With hardline Shia members of the national assembly angling for the country to be named “The Islamic Republic of Iraq”, it seems unlikely that the government won’t go the way of secularism and it will be a theocracy despite Bush’s early claims that we were freeing that country of such bad ideas — though admittedly late last year, he commented that if the Iraqis voted for a theocracy, he’d support it. (flip-flop much?)

There is a concern that the interpretation of Shia law with take women’s rights back more than 30 years. In fact in a BBC article one woman suggested that it might cause people to think that the conditions under the Saddam regime is better.

From the same article:

A strict interpretation of Islamic law would mean that the evidence of a woman in court would count for only half that of a man.

And women would have significantly less say in matters of marriage and divorce.

“We believe in equality between men and women,” says Amal Moussa, a member of the Shia coalition that took the most seats in January’s elections.

“But it is a limited equality. There are Islamic rules that regulate the family and society, and women and men have different rights and duties.”

Polygamy, permissible in Islamic law, has now become a hot political issue.

“Under the current Iraqi law a man has to get the consent of his first wife to marry a second,” says activist Hanaa Edwar. “But I feel religious elements are now trying to encourage polygamy.”

Another major concern for women’s groups is a proposal to phase out a quota system - guaranteeing women a quarter of seats in parliament - which has given Iraqi women more representation than in many other countries in the world.

Women now make up a third of the members of the national assembly elected in January but their representation in future parliaments is likely to decrease dramatically if the quota is removed.

Activists were also up in arms against proposals to have separate Shia Sunni and Christian courts to deal with family matters, although Western diplomats say some later drafts of the constitution may have dropped this clause.

“We are a pluralist society and this constitution will determine our future,” Ms Edwar says.

“It is crucial for us. We cannot allow it to move us backwards and make a mockery of conventions that Iraq has signed on human rights.”

Secular women in Iraq have been through a difficult two years, with relentless violence keeping more and more women indoors and many feeling growing pressure to wear the veil.

Every day, the conditions in Iraq for women are worse. I have heard news stories of women dressed in secular clothes being arrested. We are turning Iraq into the Taliban-run Afghanistan, just as certainly as we’ve turned it into their training ground for terror.

It all makes no sense to me. The whole world has gone insane. Every news story I read or hear makes me want an IV of whatever everyone else is taking that makes them think this all makes sense.

For more information on women’s rights in Iraq, visit this website.

Tags: Iraq, Women's Rights, Islam