Nudists and Burqas

I posted a blog a couple of days ago about burqa bans across Europe. I spoke about it with my European wife this morning and she had something interesting things to say. In Europe, and America, we do not have the right to walk around naked. This is because of decency laws, laws you find in every country in the world. Naked bodies offend others, so no naked bodies in public. To many Europeans, burqas offend others, especially women....so legally and logically, governments can also pass laws banning the offensive dress. She also brought up the issue of security. People that hide their face are seen as a threat and make others very uncomfortable.

It does make perfect sense, especially on the security issue, but I am not sure about the "offensive" argument. Personally, I don't care if people want to walk the streets naked or dressed like a mummy, but that is me and my opinion is not held by most of the world. In my previous post, I wrote that we must all grow in order for our cultures to live together peacefully. I still believe this and would argue that understanding how muslim women feel about wearing burqas would go a long way in no longer finding them offensive....or maybe I just want to walk around naked.

Here is another opinion

Belgium Wants to Ban the Burqa

Translated from Der Spiegel

Summary: Bans on buses and trains, punishable by fines and even prison sentences: Belgium is seeking to restrict the public wearing of the full body veil. A parliamentary committee voted for a similar anti-burka-law - Muslims protest and warn of stigma.

Article: The Belgian Parliament has a burqa ban on the way. The ban could be the first in Europe. The Interior Committee of the House of Representatives unanimously approved the bill on Wednesday in Brussels, it now goes to the plenary. If approved, garments such as the burqa, the niqab, and the face veil will no longer be allowed to be worn in public. It's not just about the headscarf.

Without naming the burqa, the ban will apply to any person who hides in public, "her face fully or partially, or veiled, so that one can not identify them," says the draft. Specifically excluded are motorcyclists and firefighters - people who have to wear a helmet or mask because of work.

This is a bad trend. A couple of days ago, E.U. and Swiss representatives on the right were talking about banning minarets. We have France trying to ban headscarfs.

This demonstrates an obvious desire by some to attack Islam and a clear conflict between cultures that while living in the same cities are moving away from one another. This stems from the fact that many Muslims in Europe are not integrating into society. They are creating their own Islamic worlds and in some cases, trying to enforce Islamic law. Europeans see this and are understandably repulsed. But this is no reason to run off and oppress someone's religious or cultural freedom to wear a standard dress. Burqas don't hurt me and they do not hurt you. They certainly are not hurting European society.

Update: after further discussion I posted this on the European society and offensive dress.

The deeper question here involves women's rights...the right to be free from what some consider to be an oppressive costume and an attack on women's rights or the right of a woman to wear what she wishes for whatever reason. To delve deeper, how many women truly want to wear the burka? We really don't know. Lets not assume we understand the hearts and minds of Muslim women and lets not look down at these people as brainwashed souls.

I believe Muslims must take a hard look at their behavior in their new countries. It is a two way street and Muslims must pro-actively begin to integrate into European society in many of the ways that they have in America. They must understand that they have chosen to live in a new culture and can no longer pretend they are still in their own. Some behaviors must be left behind.

I believe Europeans and Americans must think twice about our assumptions in regards to Islam and its customs. When we attempt to oppress their religious freedom, we show how little regard they should hold for our own. When we assume what is best for their women, we show our past tendencies to oppress our own.

Our cultures will continue to collide until both sides begin to grow.

Cross posted at Wordpress

E.U Selling Torture Devices

According to Time magazine, the E.U. has been exporting torture devices to some of the most notorious countries in the world.

According to the human rights watchdog Amnesty International, businesses making these types of implements are flourishing in Europe and exporting their products in spite of an E.U. ban on the trade. In a report released earlier this month, Amnesty said firms in Germany, Spain, the Czech Republic and Italy were selling items like electroshock "sleeves" and "cuffs" capable of delivering 50,000-volt shocks, spiked batons and fixed wall restraints to at least nine countries, including Pakistan, China and the U.A.E. Amnesty, which co-published the report with the London-based Omega Research Foundation, says the companies are using legal loopholes to evade restrictions put in place after the E.U. passed a law in 2006 banning the sale of torture equipment.

One of the companies responded with:

Sirien makes products like electric-shock stun shields and S-200 projectile stun guns — devices that export manager Erwin Lafosse insists save lives. "If you want to ban electroshock pistols, then policemen will have to use firearms to defend themselves," he says. "The problem with Amnesty International is that they only see the bad side to everything. Yes, these can be used to torture someone, but so can all sorts of ordinary devices like knives, forks and spoons."

So is this a case of the media making big headlines on an non-issue or this is a serious problem that needs to be addressed?

Personally, I think this is a big headline about a small attention getting issue that pulls in the broader picture of the E.U. providing arms and technology to countries that have every intention of using them to kill people. The E.U. can point the finger at the US all it wants, but a quick look in the mirror will show that the US isn't the only hypocrite in the world.

cross posted at Word Press The Moderate American

Obama to Help Hurting Home Owners. Is this another bailout?

I wrote this a couple of days ago and thought it would be worth posting here. This is the link to the original article from The Washington Post and this is the link to the thread on The Moderate Voice

The article is about Obama's plan to bailout homeowners and the fairness of this bailout to people that were responsible enough to cut back their standard of living to not need a bailout. I wrote the following in the comments section.

The problem is that we were pretending to be an unregulated free market economy when we were really working under corporate socialism policies (a tax payer backed financial system). This crisis is where theory and reality finally collided and now we have to find a fair way to get out of it.

In theory, at least mine, we should have let the free market prevail and allow our financial industry to collapse. We couldn't because this most likely would have sent our country into another great depression....and not many wanted that. Now here we are on the other end with the people that took those terrible loans when they had no business acquiring a loan in the first place. Free market theory, and maybe morality, would say they should lose their homes, in the same way lenders should have lost their companies, for making irresponsible decisions. If we allow this to happen, we'll send thousands of families into bankruptcy and destroy homes values across the nation.

It appears to me that we have the same dynamics going on here on both sides of the crisis....punishment of individuals for making irresponsible decisions vs the immediate effect of that punishment on society as a whole. (I think we can all agree that the long term precedent of tax payer funded bailouts is a bad thing)

We decided to save the economy and only punish one company. Now we have to decide how much we want to save home owners and values...in the short term...and who should be punished. By bailing out these home owners, we are basically punishing people like the author (even though his home value might be helped by these bailouts).

It is hard to say we should be tougher on these home owners, especially considering that we are talking about "main street" people, not wall street who we just gifted billions of dollars. But it is easier to be harder on them because the immediate effect on society from people losing their homes is not as dire.

What is fair? It is hard to say...considering the place we started from was by no means theoretically consistent and a lot of people made a lot of money because of it.

Quick side note...
I think this is only a black and white issue for people that either support bailing out everyone or people that would have been okay with no bailouts and risking another great depression. If a person was okay with any kind of bailout for the financial industry, then I don't believe it is ideologically honest, maybe consistent is a better word, to be completely against helping irresponsible home owners.

cross posted at Word Press The Moderate American

Huffington Unimpressive Again

In another attack dog strike at John McCain, Huffington once again proves how extremists are unable to see the eccentricities in complex issues. In the article called, "John McCain Sells His Soul to the Right: Backs Off on Torture Ban", Huffington proves herself either too dense or too enraged from GWB syndrome to understand that our military and intelligence agencies are different weapons against terror and obviously cannot be utilized or regulated in the exact same way.

She begins her rant with this, "Has there ever been a more repugnant example of political pandering than John McCain's decision to vote against a bill banning waterboarding, putting hoods on prisoners, forcing them to perform sex acts, subjecting them to mock executions, or depriving them of food, water, and medical treatment?" The level of intellectual dishonesty in this statement comes straight out of the Karl Rove handbook. She might as well have written that McCain was against a bill banning the eating interrogatees' body parts in order to gain information. Huffington implies with this statement that all of the acts she mentions are not already illegal and John McCain is a-okay with them.

Huffington then goes into a not surprisingly simple argument as to why McCain has gone against everything he has ever said about torture by voting against the bill, "The CIA has to abide by rules prohibiting torture but we can't tie the CIA's hands by making it abide by rules prohibiting torture. Straight talk, RIP...What's more, McCain said he voted against the bill because it would be a mistake to "tie the CIA to the Army Field Manual" -- a Manual he gave a ringing endorsement to in a November debate". Let me put forth the obvious, John McCain believes that the CIA should work within the rules of not only the Geneva Convention, but also any other international treaty the US has signed and federal law. He has said it on the Senate floor, he believes it, his opinion will not change. The Army Field Manual is for the Army. Federal rules and regulations are for guess who? Civilians. In no way did McCain ever say that the CIA did not have to abide by rules prohibiting torture. To say such a thing is an outright lie.

What Huffington does not understand is that in the real world, our military and intelligence agencies are regulated in completely different ways, one military and the other civil. In the real world, the US military is the face of the United States in foreign countries all over the world and the CIA is the hidden force gathering intelligence and sadly overthrowing the occasional government. In other words, they are not to be seen and they do the dirty work that other countries are to not know about. It is obvious that the US military has to be held to a higher standard than even the average American. As the face of America, their actions are on the front page of every newspaper from here to Timbuktu. Why Huffington does not realize this or refuses to acknowledge this is either a result of her own lack of brain power or most likely her bias for Barrack Obama shining through.

I find these types of attacks on John McCain disgusting. The man fought for this country. The man endured years of torture, turning down his own freedom because he could not abandon his fellow soldiers. To attack a man that has been tortured because of his specific stance on torture is the type of pathetically bias political maneuver that should be categorized with the Swift-boaters for Truth.

Huffington has become exactly the same type of political monster she once spoke out against. Now who is the hypocrite?

SuperPathetic SuperDelegates

It was reported by CNN that each superdelegate's vote equals 13,000 normal votes. The democrats have given their superdelegates the power of a million voters. I've already touched on how horribly undemocratic and disenfranchising this is to democrat voters. Now lets look at who these superdelegates are. We know some are governors and former Presidents, but not all of them can be held in such high regard...and here they are.

Jason Rae was 17 years old when he received the title "Superdelegate". Kare Travers reported, "Rae was elected as a DNC member at the Wisconsin state party convention in June 2004. He was 17 years old at the time but there are no party rules that say a DNC member has to be of voting age. Rae ran against and defeated the president of the state firefighters' union and a state legislator." Yes, not even old enough to vote, yet still a superdelegate with the power to disenfranchise 13,000 registered adult voters. Mr. Rae is now 21 and fielding phone calls from some of the most influential democrats in America. I wonder what they are talking about? I think it is reasonable to assume his political career is topic 1 on Mr. Rae's mind.

Sarah Swisher is a nurse. She is also the political director of the Johnson County, Iowa chapter of the Service Employees International Union. She had first pledged her delegate to John Edwards. After Edwards dropped out, she pledged her delegate to Hillary Clinton. Now she has once again changed her mind and is pledging her delegate to Barrack Obama. You have to love the strength in principle shown by this particular superdelegate. I can understand leaving Edwards once he left the campaign. I don't understand jumping to Clinton so quickly and then dumping her for Obama once it appears he is the current front runner. This isn't speed dating.

Manny Rodriguez and Maria Handly of Colorado are Internet ghosts. I am not sure if they actually exist. So far all I could find out about them is that they have never once held any sort of political office.

Debbie Marquez, also of Colorado, appears to be a house mom dabbling in getting her MBA. You can get the details here at her website.

In Kansas, we find Randy Roy who appears to be a professional DNC member, if that is possible. We also find E. Lee Kinch, who is a defense attorney.

California is full of mostly union organizers whos addresses are listed on the Internet, not safe. Steven Alari had this written about him, "My ambivalence about Alari is caused by his job classification (AGPA) -- one that doesn't require much education or analytical skills --". Not exactly a raving review for a union worker that carries the weight of 13,000 voters. It gets worse. Mary Ellen Early only has a BA in psychology and was appointed to the California Board of Psychology by the State Senate.

There is also good news! Christine Pelosi, daughter of Congresswomen Pelosi, is actually very qualified, go here to see why.

I will keep this blog going as I discover more about these "superdelegates". You can go here to get a list http://superdelegates.org/Main_Page

Obama the Hypocrite

Barrack Obama has often spoke out against Hillary Clinton taking contributions from Washington lobbyists. Obama said, "In this campaign, [Clinton has] taken nearly double the amount of money from lobbyists than any Democrat or Republican running for president," he also said. "That's not being a part of the solutions business. That's being a part of business-as-usual in Washington."

Apparently Obama believes it is wrong to take money from lobbyists, but it is perfectly fine to take a land discount from a dirty political power broker, Antoin "Tony" Rezko, in the state of Illinois. Brian Ross and Rhonda Schwartz reported, "While Rezko's wife paid the full asking price for the land, Obama paid $300,000 under the asking price for the house. The house sold for $1,650,000 and the price Rezko's wife paid for the land was $625,000...Obama then expanded his property by buying a strip of the Rezko land for $104,500..." They further reported that, "An ABC News review of campaign records shows Rezko, and people connected to him, contributed more than $120,000 to Obama's 2004 campaign for the U.S. Senate, much of it at a time when Rezko was the target of an FBI investigation."

The following is another report from Tim Novak.

A few months after Obama became a U.S. senator, he and Rezko's wife, Rita, bought adjacent pieces of property from a doctor in Chicago's Kenwood neighborhood -- a deal that has dogged Obama the last two years. The doctor sold the mansion to Obama for $1.65 million -- $300,000 below the asking price. Rezko's wife paid full price -- $625,000 -- for the adjacent vacant lot. The deals closed in June 2005. Six months later, Obama paid Rezko's wife $104,500 for a strip of her land, so he could have a bigger yard. At the time, it had been widely reported that Tony Rezko was under federal investigation. Questioned later about the timing of the Rezko deal, Obama called it "boneheaded" because people might think the Rezkos had done him a favor."

Now who is Rezko? "Rezko had been widely reported to be under investigation by the U.S. attorney and the FBI at the time Obama contacted him and has since been indicted on corruption charges by a federal grand jury in a case that prosecutors say involves bribes, kickbacks and "efforts to illegally obtain millions of dollars", reports Ross and Schwartz.

Obama explains this incident by saying he made "a bone-headed mistake." Really? A bonehead mistake? It sounds more like Obama and Rezko found a way to give Obama a little under the table money. Who needs to abide by campaign rules when you can hand out cash in dirty land deals? This was not a bone-headed mistake. This was a deliberate and successful attempt to flaunt campaign rules. This was Rezko getting his fingers into Obama before he hit the big time. This reminds me of a dirty sports agent going after a 16-year-old basketball player before he makes the NBA, and like with basketball players, Obama takes the help, anything to get himself out of the "ghetto" state Senate.

I am sorry, but it is no coincidence that Rezko's wife and the Obama family just happened to purchase land next to each other. It was not merely a convenient deal for Obama to purchase the land from Rezko's wife. This was a dirty land deal and this is what Obama "hopes" people continue to ignore.

It is completely hypocritical for Obama to point his finger at Clinton after what he has done. Obviously Obama does not have to stoop to such behavior now, but there is a historical precedent here that we cannot ignore. When Obama needs something, he is more than willing to get dirty in order to get it. That sounds awful familiar...that sounds a lot like the Bush Administration.