Democracy

Admit it. He makes the best and most uplifting speeches. Crap, I’m almost in tears.

When it comes to the Elephants I’ve been saying for a year now that I support John McCain. As for the Donkeys, it’s either Hillary or Obama. I’m sort of undecided but I gotta say I’m leaning more towards Mr. Hope. And yeah I pretty much agree with Sandmonkey.

As for now… Go Obama!

It might seem odd to many (especially Muslims), but I am deeply intrigued by Ayn Rand. Up until recently, I only knew small bits of information about her and the views she espoused. Lately though, I find myself getting acquainted better and the more I read, the more I’m fascinated.

The woman was tough and confidently outspoken. In this video she makes a number of solid points.

Her words left me wondering though.

As a Muslim I have trouble accepting human reason purely and solely as my guiding compass. Our intellect isn’t perfect. Reducing our existence within the elaborate order of our universe to mere coincidence seems far-fetched to me. I don’t believe it’s all some random accident.

In comes revelation. In too (and along with it) come numerous questions and hence the need to use human intellect in order to attempt to answer those questions - some of which are highly troublesome. Many get answered. A few others - Free Will Vs Predestination for example - have no intellectually satisfying answers. In comes faith.

The Question is, on which do we rely more, faith or reason? By default the answer to me is most definitely reason but that may change sometimes depending on what exactly we’re discussing. I however certainly prefer to rely on reason more than faith. One thing is for sure though, I don’t exclusively subscribe to either one or the other and I’m definitely not in favor of faith being the dominant factor in matters of the state.

Let’s do this and that because God said so? Hmm… No thanks. I prefer a strict system of Shura in place resulting in a representative democracy. Of course it would be completely useless if the majority relied excessively on faith anyway and there were no constitutional limits to protect peoples’ rights.

The aforementioned is related to ideas of mine written in a previous post:

What constitutes knowledge and what doesn’t to a particular society? In the West there is a higher emphasis on empiricism rather than revelation. In the Muslim world, the emphasis is instead generally on revelation.

Epistemology (let alone Islamic Epistemology) can be both fun and a headache.

I don’t believe I’ll ever reach a satisfying answer to the Free Will Vs Predestination issue. Philosophers have wondered about it and debated it for thousands of years to no true avail. I don’t expect to have better luck (ah, don’t even get me started about the idea of luck).

I have two choices. Give up. Or have faith.

I choose a third option. To have faith while I simultaneously delve deeper in hopeful pursuit of satisfying answers and “aha” moments.

And for now… Some Ayn Rand.

I’ll call it “photo of the day”. I found it at Miss Egyptiana’s blog. It displays a very comfortable coexistence between the secular and religious. There is the big umbrella of freedom under which exists mini-”freedoms”. Think about it.

You’ll find other pieces of art bearing strong similarities here, here and here.

Yup, it’s true. I’ve written about the hijab here and here. Even our beloved Danish friend, the one and only Halalhippie has. Now it might actually become a reality in the Danish parliament.

And you know what’s funny? It isn’t in the Turkish one. Ironic isn’t it?

Discovered via Iraq.DailyVoices.com:

Long live Iraq’s true freedom fighters!!

UPDATE:

I wrote this six months ago in a post that pissed off some people:

If, I repeat if, order and security is back and if Iraqis start seeing peace, prosperity and justice in the coming years, then I believe Bush will go down in history as a liberator. If that doesn’t happen, then he will forever be remembered as an evil warmonger and will go down in history as one of the worst presidents in modern times.

Now read what the BBC has to say. Yes, the BBC! Me is happy and cautiously hopeful.

This cracked me up so badly!

… it occurred to me that Democrats really don’t need to do anything. All liberals need to do is sit back and watch while the whole Republican government resigns after it’s discovered that they’re all actually gay.

That makes at least three this year. Mark Foley, Larry Craig and Richard Curtis. Am I missing someone?

Am I the only one finding this hilarious?

Yeth yeth, of courth. The Egyptian government hath alwayth thupported free thpeech. Praith be to Hothni Mubarak, the greatetht prethident ever.

There were some tensions over U.S. criticism of human rights in Egypt. Rice told their press conference that in her talks with Mubarak and Aboul Gheit she brought up the issue of the detentions of four independent newspaper editors given prison sentences or put on trial for criticizing Mubarak.

“When we touch on issues we considered sensitive and internal, I listen. But my response is always that it is due process,” Aboul Gheit retorted. “This government does not interfere in Egyptian legal procedures.”

Buahahahahahahahahaha!

Sadiq al-Mahid is the former Prime Minister of Sudan. I regard him as an appealing figure in Sudanese politics worthy of respect. Sudan Tribune conducted an excellent interview with him:

Mr. Al Mahdi is one of the few Sudanese political leaders who truly believes in a liberal democracy and ruling by consensus in a country that is traumatized by polarization and extreme positions. No doubt his political ideas and thoughts are well worth revisiting. The articulate, courteous veteran politician doesn’t mince his words when it comes to describing dictatorship and totalitarianism. Al Mahdi seems like a man burdened by the weight of history – his great grandfather miraculously succeeded in uniting the hopelessly divided Sudanese tribes of the 19th Century in ousting the Turkey-Egyptian rule in 1885, and now Sudan once again faces its greatest calamity (using his own word) since independence. Maybe at this historical juncture of our his words might bring some hope to our increasingly bleak-looking future.

The following are some excerpts from the interview:

How do you assess the current political situation in Sudan?

Al-Mahdi: The political situation in Sudan now is very sad, there are three peace agreements which were signed in 2005 and 2006 and they are not working properly. The idea was that the Sudan, through the Naivasha agreement, would make four main achievements: number one, comprehensive peace; number two, inclusive government; number three, to make unity attractive; and number four, to implement a program of democratization and democratic transformation. These aims are not being fulfilled – there is no comprehensive peace, there is no inclusive government, democratization is stalled and there is no democratic transformation to speak of to make unity attractive. In reality all the factors are pointing in the other direction.

Very sad? Make that extremely tragic and super depressing.

Many reports now describe this country as potentially a failing state – what, in your opinion, went wrong? Who do we have to blame if this country disintegrates?

Al-Mahdi: Of course, the main trouble that befell Sudan is that a coup led by a minority party tried to implement a partisan Islamist program in a country which is so full of diversity, a country that has got several religions and several cultures, different regional forces, different political orientations. To try to force a partisan Islamist program in this type of country was the main cause of polarization, both inside Sudan, and between Sudan and its neighbors and the international community. I think this set the ball rolling in the wrong direction.

The second main reason for Sudan’s present calamity is the fact that the National Congress Party tried to change the socio-political map of Darfur in a way which has created four new problems they were not there before. Firstly, politicization of ethnicity; secondly, the insurrection against the central government; thirdly, a major humanitarian tragedy in the IDP camps and their villages; and fourthly, the internationalization of the problem of Darfur. So Darfur now suffers from four new problems. The National Congress Party is responsible for creating these problems and now they are using sedatives, public relations exercises and superficial acts to try to solve problems that need a different approach. I think the coup of June 1989 and the ideology they tried to apply in Sudan, and the way the National Congress Party mis-administered Darfur is responsible for our current state of affairs.

If there’s one Sudanese politician I passionately despise then it’s none other than Hassan al-Turabi. It was he who envisioned the Islamization and Arabization of Sudan. Moreover he was the spiritual guide of the National Congress Party (previously known as the National Islamic Front) when it took over after the coup. People used to call al-Turabi the puppeteer and Omar al-Bashir the puppet.

Do you think the NCP is genuine on the issue of democratic transformation? To put it another way, do you think NCP is capable of transforming its current totalitarian tendency, and embrace true democracy?

Al-Mahdi: I think the NCP itself leans on the state institution and it will evaporate if the state collapses. It’s not a party, it is a group of people holding together because of certain posts and financial interests. They have no ideology and all their ideological sacred cows have been slaughtered. They can’t speak of any kind of achievement and oil production, for instance, is a case where they did not use any oil revenue for the benefit of the people, but only for oppression, not progression. Sudan, since the time of colonialism had enjoyed a kind of welfare state. We consistently supported education, health and provided essential consumer items. There was a welfare state in Sudan and they liquidated it and did not use the resources saved from this to promote development or popular programs, they used it for the intensification of administrative and security institutions and the Army as an institution of oppression. Therefore I think it is clear the NCP has failed.

The slaughtered ideological cow Sadiq al-Mahdi is referring to is Hassan al-Turabi. Omar al-Bashir kicked him out of government and put him on house arrest after suspecting he was up to a dirty game to completely seize power. It’s one of the very few actions carried out by Omar al-Bashir which I fully support.

Read the whole interview if you have time. It’s pretty damn good and I agree with everything he says.

On a related note, I wish countries like Egypt will learn from our lesson. Egyptians are surely going to live the Muslim Brotherhood.

Yaaay! He won! Phew! Hey come on, I’m not a Zionist agent. I’m just looking at the bright side. At least Netanyahu’s challenger, crazy Moshe Feiglin got defeated:

Netanyahu faced a relatively strong challenge from Moshe Feiglin, a radical West Bank settler, whose performance in Tuesday’s primary could help shore up the extreme right wing of the party and hurt Netanyahu’s efforts to rehabilitate Likud after it was battered in national elections last year.

…Feiglin’s platform calls for barring Arabs from Israel’s parliament, encouraging non-Jews to emigrate and pulling Israel out of the United Nations. He is viewed as extreme even by many Israeli settlers.

Yaaay!

I’m not sure since it’s too early to tell but from how things are looking right now, I think it’s going to boil down to the 2 of them facing each other. Both of them are unique in the sense that they have the potential of appealing to voters from the opposing side. Furthermore they already have significant support from their voting bases.

Hillary is a unique Donkey due to her un-Donkey support of the Iraq war. Hence she has potential to capture some votes from the Right. Giuliani is a unique Elephant due to his un-Elephant stance on social issues like abortion. He’s pro-choice. Hence he has potential to capture some votes from the Left.

Personally, I’d like to see John McCain from the Elephant side. I like the guy but I don’t think he stands a chance to get elected anymore since he pissed off too many people in his voting base with regards to the illegal immigration issue. So yes, I’m guessing he’s pretty much “bye bye”.
Also, as much as I like Donkey Obama’s eloquent speeches, I think his inexperience is starting to show when he proposes dumb ideas such as withdrawing from Iraq and sending troops to Pakistan instead (hat tip: DB Shobrawy). Ya, sure thing, that would work. Still though, Obama has a good chance of beating Hillary.

I found this hilarious. It can apply to other countries too, not just Malaysia. LOL!

I found this quiz at the Atheist Jew’s blog and spent a few minutes answering it. The following are my results:

1. Theoretical Ideal Candidate (100%)
2. Mitt Romney (60%)
3. Tommy Thompson (54%)
4. John McCain (50%)
5. Al Gore (48%)
6. Ron Paul (47%)
7. Tom Tancredo (47%)
8. Christopher Dodd (47%)
9. Mike Huckabee (47%)
10. Sam Brownback (47%)
11. Jim Gilmore (45%)
12. Wesley Clark (45%)
13. Barack Obama (45%)
14. John Edwards (45%)
15. Chuck Hagel (43%)
16. Duncan Hunter (43%)
17. Dennis Kucinich (41%)
18. Michael Bloomberg (41%)
19. Fred Thompson (40%)
20. Hillary Clinton (39%)
21. Joseph Biden (39%)
22. Bill Richardson (37%)
23. Rudolph Giuliani (37%)
24. Alan Augustson (36%)
25. Newt Gingrich (33%)
26. Kent McManigal (32%)
27. Mike Gravel (22%)
28. Elaine Brown (21%)

Interesting huh? I’ve never liked the idea of putting myself in a Right or Left box. It’s too confining. Center-Left to Center-Right is my opinion spectrum. But hey maybe I really am a right-leaning centrist after all (if there is such a thing). As for Romney, from what little I read about him, it seems like he’s a spineless chameleon who changes his stances every 2 seconds. At least McCain came in at 4.

Here, why don’t you give the quiz a try!

I was so happy when I read this article and I’m really hoping that this initiative comes into being. Good luck guys. Long live the blogosphere and all bloggers sitting behind their keyboards dreaming of freedom and demoracy! May we all live to see and smell that day.

(Thanks for the link Jennifer! Hope your Dishy Duds T-shirts are selling well )

Lately I’ve been reading Opinion Journal more frequently and yesterday I stumbled upon this excellent piece. Not Your Mama, this is for you as promised :

There is a serious and widening disconnect between the timetables that commanders are using to guide their actions in Iraq and those being demanded by politicians in Washington.

…Inevitably, since suicide attacks will still be occurring in Iraq in September, many commentators and politicians will write off the surge as a failure. Many are already doing so, even though the Baghdad Security Plan is barely three months old and the fourth extra U.S. brigade has only recently arrived.

…An article in USA Today reported on a Pentagon-funded study which confirms what military historians already know–an average insurgency can run for a decade, but most fail in the end. Translation: If we’re going to be successful in Iraq, we’re going to have to make a long-term commitment.

…Most Americans seem resigned to that fate. In fact many think that the civil war has already begun, and we can’t or shouldn’t do anything about it. We hear all the time that “we have no business getting into the middle of someone else’s civil war”–often from the very same people who in the 1990s were (rightly) urging that we get involved in the civil wars of the former Yugoslavia or who today (rightly) urge us to get involved in the civil war in Sudan.

I don’t know about that “(rightly)” part refering to Sudan but anyways…

…If U.S. troops were to pull out anytime in the foreseeable future, the probable result would not be (as so many advocates of withdrawal claim) that Iraqis would “get their act together” and take care of their problems themselves. The far more likely consequence would be an all-out civil war. Not only would this be a humanitarian tragedy for which the U.S. would bear indirect responsibility, but it would also be a catastrophe for American interests in the region. If we are seen as the losers in Iraq, al Qaeda would be seen as the winner.

That ought to be “lovely”. The problem is that the majority of the American people aren’t listening to the Elephants anymore and they don’t care about what they have to say. It’s unfortunate that the Elephants screwed up many times in the last few years. Meanwhile Donkeys will keep proposing their symbolic bills, BAM they’ll get rejected and as we approach 2008, the possibility of a Donkey president will get higher and higher.