TNR looks at Giuliani, finds socially moderate Republicans.

Thomas B. Edsall's article on Rudy Giuliani in The New Republic (registration required) indicates that someone at TNR has figured out what many of us have known for some time: that the Republican Party of today is no longer the domain of unchallenged social conservatism that it was in the 1970s - and that this bodes well for the Giuliani campaign.

What if we are witnessing not Rudy moving toward the rest of the Republican Party, but rather the Republican Party moving toward Rudy? What if the salience of a certain kind of social conservatism is now in decline among GOP voters and a new set of conservative principles are emerging to take its place? What if Giuilianism represents the future of the Republican Party?

I haven't had the chance to read the article carefully yet, but it looks fairly positive and appears to hit some of the main points that the liberal media have generally missed: that social moderates are now a strong force in the GOP; that Republicans see in Rudy Giuliani a much-needed managerial competence; and that Giuliani's no-nonsense manner and his 9/11 "street cred" are strong assets in his favor.

Here's one more snip from the article:

In brief, among Republican voters, the litmus test issues of abortion and gay marriage have been losing traction, subordinated to the Iraq war and terrorism. According to the Pew Research Center, 31 percent of GOP voters name Iraq as their top priority, and 17 percent choose terrorism and security. Just 7 percent name abortion and 1 percent name gay marriage.

The roots of this transformation predate September 11 and are partly the result of demographics. The lions of the Christian right--Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson--no longer dominate Republican politics as they once did. Their grip is slackening as their older followers are slowly replaced by a generation for which the social, cultural, and sexual mores that were overturned by the 1960s are history, not memory. In retrospect, these men reached the height of their power in the late '80s, when, by a 51-to-42 majority, voters agreed that "school boards ought to have the right to fire teachers who are known homosexuals." Now a decisive 66-to-28 majority disagrees, according to Pew. In 1987, the electorate was roughly split on the question of whether "aids might be God's punishment for immoral sexual behavior." Today, 72 percent disagree with that statement, while just 23 percent concur.

Giuliani is on the cutting edge of these trends, seeking to exploit new ideological lines between conservatism and liberalism. ...

Related.
Desperately seeking Archie Bunker.
Mary Cheney's baby.

Mullah Dadullah

Welcome, Mullah Dadullah, to the exclusive but ever-growing ranks of the Dead Terrorists. We hope you enjoy your stay.

Wikipedia - Mullah Dadullah:

Mullah Dadullah or Dadullah Akhund (1966? – May 12, 2007) was an ethnic Pashtun from Uruzgan province in Afghanistan. He was the Taliban's senior military commander until his death in 2007.

StrategyPage:

May 14, 2007: In a major setback, the senior Taliban field commander, Mullah Dadullah, was cornered and killed by NATO forces in Helmand province over the weekend. NATO and Afghan troops have been chasing Dadullah around southern Afghanistan for a month. Dadullah knew he was being tracked, and his pursuers knew he was trying to get to safety in Pakistan. This time, Dadullah didn't make it.

Dadullah was a member of the Council of Ten that runs the Taliban, and the chief military strategist. Getting killed may have been a good career move, because his terror strategy wasn't working. The Taliban were getting battered worse this year than last, and Taliban popularity was declining in the south. Now the Taliban can simultaneously praise Dadullah as a martyr for the cause, and the reason the cause is failing. The Taliban first denied, then admitted Dadullah was dead. Dadullah was a big fan of terrorism, but he was also important because he managed to get normally hostile groups to cooperate with each other. The government will probably be able to get more Taliban groups to negotiate peace deals now, without the threat of Dadullah "punishing traitors."

Stratfor:

Geopolitical Diary: Examining Mullah Dadullah's Death
Stratfor, 5/14/07, 8:00 CDT

Afghan intelligence announced on Sunday that top Taliban military commander Mullah Dadullah was killed early Saturday during a battle with an Afghan-NATO force in Helmand province. The 40-year-old Taliban leader had emerged as the most important operational commander on which Mullah Mohammad Omar could rely in pressing ahead with the jihadist insurgency in the country. Under his leadership, the Pashtun jihadist movement adopted the tactic of suicide bombings, and he represented the faction close to al Qaeda.

Dadullah's killing is the first major success for Kabul and NATO against the Pashtun jihadists since the resurgence of the Taliban shortly after the ouster of their regime in
2001.

CTB:

On May 10, 2007, the Nine Eleven Finding Answers (NEFA) Foundation was able to secure access to an exclusive interview with Taliban military commander Mullah Dadullah--only 24 hours before Dadullah was killed by Afghan and NATO military forces. During what would become his final interview, Dadullah stated that American and British Al-Qaida recruits are in the midst of planning and training for new terrorist strikes in their home countries: "We will be executing attacks in Britain and the U.S. to demonstrate our sincerity," he explained in Pashto, "to destroy their cities as they have destroyed our cities." A senior U.S. official told the Blotter on ABCNews.com that recent intelligence reports confirmed Dadullah's claim that U.S. citizens were being trained in Taliban and al Qaeda camps. "The number is small, not large, but even once is dangerous," the official said.

ABC News:

Thirty-six hours before he was killed by U.S. forces, Taliban Commander Mullah Dadullah said he was training American and British citizens to carry out suicide missions in their home countries, according to a videotape interview to be broadcast on ABC News' "World News" Monday.

"We will be executing attacks in Britain and the U.S. to demonstrate our sincerity," he told an Afghan interviewer, "to destroy their cities as they have destroyed our cities."

Linda:

I hope it hurt. I hope it hurt a lot.

State Representative Dan Zwonitzer of Wyoming Supports Marriage Equality

From Alas, a Blog:

This is kind of old news, but I missed it at the time, and maybe some “Alas” readers did too. Wyoming State Rep Dan Zwonitzer, who is straight and a Republican, in February of this year voted against a measure that would have forbidden Wyoming from recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states. ...

Thanks to Ampersand for passing this on. Pandagon has more. Here is an excerpt from Zwonitzer's speech:

Being a student of history, as many of you are, and going back through history, most of history has been driven by the struggle of man against government to endow him with more rights, privileges and liberties to be bestowed upon him.

In all of my high school courses, we only made it through history to World War 2. It wasn’t until college that I really learned of the civil rights movement in the 60’s. My American History professor was black, and we spent a week discussing civil rights. I watched video after video where people stood on the sidelines and yelled and threw things at black students walking into schools, I’ve read editorials and reports by both sides of the issue, and I would think, how could society feel this way, only 40 years ago.

Under a democracy the civil rights struggle continues today, where we have one segment of our society trying to restrict rights and privelges from another segment of our society. My parents raised me to know that this is wrong.

It is wrong for one segment of society to restrict rights and freedoms from another segment of society. I believe many of you have had this conversation with your children.

And children have listened, my generation, the twenty-somethings, and those younger than I understand this message of tolerance. And in 20 years, when they take the reigns of this government and all governments, society will see this issue overturned, and people will wonder why it took so long. ...

And here is Zwonitzer's message, posted at Pandagon:

I have obviously thought about this issue a great deal in the last 24 hours, and have truly come to realize that marriage in any form is greater than allowing a group of our citizens to continually be persecuted; and I’ve come to understand that many of the reasons they are vilified in our society is directly related to the fact there is not an opportunity to form recognized, committed long-term relationships.
It is my sincere hope that the outside world does not continue to believe Wyoming to be an intolerant and bigoted state. We have a low population which does not allow a lot of room for intolerance here as everyone knows everyone. When people come to know others who are different and accept them, their attitudes change.

Luckily, I have not had significant negative feedback today from people in my District. Yes, there has certainly been some comment from citizens from the “deep red” portions of my state. I am hoping that the silent majority of Wyoming understands and agrees with me, as I am fairly confident they do. It was greatly controversial right up until it was killed in committee, and within a day things have settled back down.

HR 1592

I'm supporting HR 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007.

There seem to be a lot of objections to it from the conservative world, some reasonable, most (in my opinion) not. In the interests of cogency, I'll begin with the reasonable objections.

The basic argument against H.R. 1592 is the argument against "hate crimes" legislation in general: that it clutters the lawbooks with unnecessary and redundant laws, and that it differentiates between "classes" of citizens (in this case, crime victims) - thus enshrining the very inequality it purports to fight. What is needed, the conservative argument goes, is not special laws to protect certain classes of people, but better enforcement of existing laws against common crime.

I have some respect for this position, but I think it misses a couple of key points. First, the purpose of hate crimes laws is to target bias-motivated crime; that is, it's the motive of the aggressor, not the identity of the vicitm, that's the determining factor. Now you may agree or disagree with that on principle, but there's no basis for the claim that the law operates on the basis of the victim's identity. Here's what HR 1592 says:

Sec. 249. Hate crime acts

`(a) In General-

`(1) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person--

`(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and

`(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--

`(i) death results from the offense; or

`(ii) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

`(2) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, OR DISABILITY-

`(A) IN GENERAL- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of any person--

`(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and

`(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--

`(I) death results from the offense; or

`(II) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

There's a lot more at the link, of course. Now I think the language of "actual or perceived race, etc." is a problem because it seems to suggest the opposite, i.e. that the victim's race (or other status) is itself part of the law's concern. It would be better if the text read only "perceived race, etc." because it's the perp's perceptions that we care about. But a little farther down you can find the following:

`(b) Certification Requirement- No prosecution of any offense described in this subsection may be undertaken by the United States, except under the certification in writing of the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General, or any Assistant Attorney General specially designated by the Attorney General that--

`(1) such certifying individual has reasonable cause to believe that the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person was a motivating factor underlying the alleged conduct of the defendant;

which ought to clear things up. Bottom line: the victim doesn't automatically get to claim "bias crime" just because he or she is a different race (or whatever) from the perpetrator.

The second point I want to make is that bias laws don't just apply to certain groups or "minorities". But don't take my word for it. Here's a clip from the FBI's 2004 hate crime statistics:

Racial bias motivated crimes against 5,119 hate crime victims of single-bias incidents. Nearly 68 percent (67.9) of the victims were the object of an anti-black bias. Slightly more than 20 percent (20.1) were victims of an anti-white bias, 5.2 percent were victimized because of an anti-Asian or Pacific Islander bias, and 2.0 percent were victims due to an anti-American Indian or Alaskan native bias. Victims of anti-multiple races bias, i.e., groups in which more than one race was represented, comprised 4.9 percent of hate crime victims.

In 2004, law enforcement agencies reported that there were 1,586 victims of crimes motivated by a religious bias (single-bias incidents only). Most (67.8 percent) were victimized because of an anti-Jewish bias. An anti-Islamic bias motivated offenses against 12.7 percent of victims, and an anti-Catholic bias provoked crimes against 4.3 percent. Victims of an anti-Protestant bias made up 3.0 percent of victims of hate crimes resulting from a religious bias; other religions, 9.3 percent; and multiple religions, group, 2.5 percent. The remaining 0.4 percent of hate crime victims were targeted because of the offender’s anti-Atheism or anti-Agnosticism bias.

In terms of single-bias incidents motivated by a sexual-orientation bias, law enforcement reported 1,482 victims, most of which (60.9 percent) were victims of crimes motivated by an anti-male homosexual bias. In addition, 21.2 percent of victims were targets of an anti-homosexual (male and female) bias. Slightly more than 14 percent (14.3) were victims of an anti-female homosexual bias, 2.4 percent were victimized because of an anti-heterosexual bias, and 1.2 percent were targets of an anti-bisexual bias.

Obviously I've added the bolding here; the point is that phrases like "race" and "sexual orientation" mean what they say; the law recognizes a bias crime as a bias crime. So, does anti-bias law protect straight white Protestant males? Yes.

You can go to the Wikipedia article on hate crime laws in the United States for an informative, readable, jargon-free roundup of information on the subject. Here's what Wiki says about federal law:

Current statutes permit federal prosecution of hate crimes committed on the basis of a person's race, color, religion, or nation origin when engaging in a federally protected activity (see 1969 law, infra). Legislation is currently pending that would add gender, sexual orientation, gender-identity, and disability to this list, as well as remove the prerequisite that the victim be engaging in a federally protected activity ...

Now, I'd originally planned to spend a lot of space rebutting Andrew Jaffee's rant at Israpundit but I don't think it's really worth the effort. In Jaffee's favor, though, I'll point out that the section he quotes about eliminating "the badges, incidents, and relics of slavery" has been stricken from the text of the bill, and rightly so, in my opinion; and as I've already said, I have a problem with the "real or perceived" business for the same reason Jaffee does.

Jaffee goes on to quote a WND article which alleges that 1592 is

similar to a state law that already has been used to send grandmothers to jail for their "crime" of sharing the Gospel of Jesus on a Philadelphia public sidewalk.

I'm not familiar with the specifics of this case, but I take everything WingNutDaily says with a grain of salt. So I'll just zip right to my next main point, and that's on religion, free speech, and homosexuality.

As I posted two years ago, I absolutely support the right of social conservatives to exercise their right to free speech, regardless of whether their views about homosexuality are the same as mine. In the 2005 incident, students at South Windsor High School (my old school, BTW) were denied the right to wear T-shirts with Biblical quotes about homosexuality on the grounds that it was "hate speech".

But the business of "hate speech" is entirely different from the "hate crimes" I've discussed above. In the Connecticut case, school officials acted arbitrarily and high-handedly (and unencumbered by any legal system) to enforce an ad-hoc speech code on their students. No acts of violence or property damage were committed or threatened by the conservative students; they were simply expressing their beliefs about homosexuality, in the context of an ongoing debate over pending gay-rights legislation in the state. (That bill was later signed into law by Republican Governor Jodi Rell, making Connecticut the first state in the US to recognize civil unions through the legislative process).

Now back to hate crimes. A hate crime is, by definition, an act which is already criminal in and of itself - threat, vandalism, assault, murder - and which is legally exacerbated by the bias motive. No hate crime law is going to make it illegal to express your belief that homosexuality is wrong, immoral, or a sin - unless your idea of "expressing your belief" means doing harm to somebody else. If you don't know the difference, maybe you need to sign up for a refresher course in Civilized Debate 101.

But here's the thing. There are people out there who are unable or unwilling to draw that very distinction. Do I have to spell it out for you? Do I have to name names?

There are people out there who would like to cut your head off just because you don't believe in the same religion they do. And their views about "lifestyle choices" would make any Baptist preacher look like a free-love apostle by comparison. Regardless of what CAIR may think this legislation will do for them, hate-crime laws are there to make life harder for people who want to do violence based on prejudice - and we in the counter-jihad world ought to remember that and use it to our advantage.

Think of Ilan Halimi. Was he killed because he was a Jew? Does it matter? I think he was, and I think it does. Now think of the immigrant women in places like the Netherlands who live in fear of honor killings if they step out of line. A crime is a crime is a crime, you say? Hmmm.

All right then. This is turning into a long post, so it's time for my bottom line.

Maybe it bugs you that the same law that protects Jews and Christians from religious persecution, might also protect lesbian and gay people from homophobic hate crimes. Well, think about this. HR 1592 is about the crime, not about the victim. It's about the use of gender to justify violence and religion to justify killing gays.

H.R. 1592 isn't there to tell you what to think or what to say. It's not there to tell a preacher in a church or an imam in a mosque that he can't speak about his beliefs on homosexuality. What it does do is bring down a whole lot of firepower on people who use certain kinds of hate to justify illegal and immoral acts against other people.

If you feel that cramps your style, then maybe we'd better have a long talk.

Iranian Gay Rights Activist Mani Zaniar on CBC

CBC spotlights Iranian gay activist:

He is followed by secret police. His friends are routinely whipped. Some are executed. His name is Mani Zaniar and he is the leader of Iran’s secret gay rights movement.

It is the most dangerous civil rights movement in the world. And for the first time ever, Mani, and many others, have risked their lives to come on camera and tell their story.

In this startling and unique documentary, Out in Iran, we go to Iran and get the world’s first look at life inside Iran’s persecuted gay community. We meet an astonishing group of courageous people with heartbreaking stories.

HT: Or Does It Explode

Requiem for Sandmonkey

I'm still in shock. I'm still in denial, and I'm thinking, "No, he doesn't mean it." Or, "This isn't happening, it's all just a bad dream." But reality is pretty stubborn. And there, sitting right in the middle of my screen right now, are the following words:

Done

Today is going to be the day that I've been dreading for quite sometime now. Today is the day I walk away from this blog. Done. Finished. ...

Sandmonkey is quitting. This is a dark day for Egypt and a dark day for the blogosphere. So we have to ask: Why?

One of the chief reasons is the fact that there has been too much heat around me lately. I no longer believe that my anonymity is kept, especially with State Secuirty agents lurking around my street and asking questions about me since that day. I ignore that, the same way I ignored all the clicking noises that my phones started to exhibit all of a sudden, or the law suit filed by Judge Mourad on my friends, and instead grew bolder and more reckless at a time where everybody else started being more cautious. It took me a while to take note of the fear that has been gripping our little blogsphere and comprehend what it really means. The prospects for improvment, to put it slightly, look pretty grim. I was the model of caution, and believing in my invincipility by managing not to get arrested for the past 2 and a half years, I've grown reckless.

There's more:

One has to wonder at some point the futulity of being a keyboard warrior in a country where nothing seems to matter to its people anymore. At the same time, there has been those amongst us who have loved the fame and the attention, and are now becoming the egyptian blogsphere's equivelant of Paris Hilton: They are famous for being famous, peddling the same stories and not really presenting anything of value to the debate. And then there is the fact that we are entering the "Iconogrphy" phase : We are becoming Icons. Too much Media attention, too many american organizations claiming to champion our causes while they are cashing out in donation from people gullible enough to believe them, too much hype generated by us and others, so many of us tooting our own horns and even crying wolf at times has made Icons of us. ...

Go read the rest at the link. And if you have a moment, go to the Sandmonkey index and peruse (or download!) his archives.

Here's Kat at The Middle Ground:

Sand Monkey was one of the first proponents of Democracy that I read in any other country besides the brothers at Iraq the Model. He was funny, snarky and serious all at once. He was pro-democracy, pro-American, and, though he would be categorized as "conservative" by current American politics, he is one of the most liberal Egyptians that I know.

His conversations with his NDP mother were priceless. Blogging about taxi rides, religious music and politics gave you a taste of Egypt on the ground. His site was the first place I ever talked to a real "Palestinian" about Israel, Palestine, Arafat and many other subjects. Most of all, his continued efforts to talk about the real political situation in Egypt, the motives, the laws and the people, allowed us to alternately hope for and fear for democracy in Egypt and the greater Middle East.

He's going dark now because Egypt has been arresting bloggers and, he fears, coming closer to him daily. He believes his anonymity has been compromised and, like the pamphlateers of old, he relied on that to be able to say whatever he felt about democracy and the lack of it in Egypt.

Kat links to Pamela at Atlas Shrugs with an interview:

SANDMONKEY: "Any kind of democratic reform in the country [Egypt] for the past 3 years has been rolled back specifically because there is no more pressure coming from Washington anymore."

ATLAS: Why? What happened to the pressure in Washington?

SANDMONKEY: You know what happened to the pressure in Washington. The Democrats won the Congress. There is no more pressure coming from Bush because he is not able to push people anymore to do those things. He is not able to push the Egyptian government anymore because the American public is suddenly not interested in reforming the Middle East because of what's going on in the Iraq. So suddenly the Egyptian government is not afraid of the American pressure. They are doing whatever they want to do. They are beating up demonstrators, they are cracking down on activists, they are changing the constitution, and eroding civil liberties once and for all and they are using proxies to take down bloggers. ...

Go read the rest, and click on the audio link for the full interview. Many, many thanks to Pamela for letting us hear Sandmonkey's voice.

Sandmonkey was one of my absolute favorite bloggers. I loved his honesty, his humor, his chutzpah and his humility. And I'm mad as hell that the bastards got to him.

But let's not leave it there. Just in case you haven't already, please bookmark Freedom For Egyptians; this should be one of your daily stops. So should Ritzy Mabrouk.

And there's more you can do. You might not be familiar with the name, but Egyptian blogger Abdulmonaem Mahmoud has been arrested. There's a petition to free Monem - take a moment to sign it. Yeah, I know, the English translation is lame, but you get the point, right? Here's the French text, which reads a little better:

Au nom de DIEU , le clément , le tout miséricordieux

Ce n’est plus un secret , ce que les actifs dans le domaine politique en Egypte subissent : violations des libertés , arrestations violentes , irruptions à domicile , intimidation des familles et enfants…

Au fond de cette sombre scène , on constate que ces violations touchent tout le peuple avec toutes les affiliations intellectuelles et politiques , sans exception.

les bloggeurs égyptiens constituent une partie du peuple , et se situent au cœur du mouvement de la presse libre égyptienne . Etant le cas, et puisque les régimes dictateurs ont comme souci de cacher toute vérité , ils traitent alors la presse libre avec une main de fer.

l’ irruption , puis l’ arrestation du bloggeur et journaliste Abdelmenem Mahmoud , propriétaire du blog « ANA IKHWAN » ( JE SUIS IKHWAN ), et correspondant de la chaine ALMIHWAR au Caire , n’ est que la réaction attendu d’un régime policier avec toute voix libre en Egypte.

On a trouvé primordial alors , nous les bloggeur égyptiens , de formuler un manifeste consacré à la défense du droit de notre collègue à s’ exprimer librement, et à défendre le droit des bloggeurs et de la presse libre , à une opposition pacifique.

On s’est entendu alors ,nous les bloggeur d’ Egypte, sur le refus total de toute réaction basé sur une mentalité policière et violente lors du traitement d’ une opinion opposée.

Tout les soussignés , sollicitent ce qui suit :

• On sollicite du gouvernement égyptien , la libération immédiate de notre camarade , et de tous les détenus d’ opinion en Egypte .

• On sollicite de toute organisation internationale des droits de l’ Homme , et des organisations non- gouvernementales, à dénoncer ces violations du droit à l’ expression libre en Egypte .

• On refuse tout traitement violent de la part du régime politique , des causes en relation à la liberté d’ expression, ou de publication électronique ou de presse .

• Nous confirmons notre soutien inconditionnel de la société des bloggeurs sur le niveau international , concernant leurs droit à la liberté d’ expression à travers tous les moyens de publication possibles.

I don't read much Arabic (yet!) but here's an excerpt from the Arabic text -

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

لم يعد خافيا على أحد ما يتعرض له النشطاء السياسيين في مصر من انتهاكات للحريات واعتقالات تعسفية ومداهمات للمنازل الآمنة وترويع للعائلات والأطفال .


و كحلقة في تلك السلسلة السوداء , نجد تلك الانتهاكات تطال كل طوائف الشعب المصري بكافة انتماءاته الفكرية و السياسية .
وكجزء أصيل من الشعب المصري نرى المدونين في صدر حركة الصحافة الحرة في مصر , وكعادة الأنظمة القمعية التي تريد تغييب الشعوب عن الحقائق الدامغة , فهي تتعامل مع الصحافة الحرة والمستقلة بالحديد والنار .


ومن هنا جاءت مداهمة منزل واعتقال المدون و الصحفي عبدالمنعم محمود صاحب مدونة أنا إخوان ومراسل قناة الحوار في القاهرة كنتاج طبيعي للتعامل البوليسي مع القلم الحر في مصر .

You know what to do.

New face of Pakistan?

And now for something completely different.

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan -- Begum Nawazish Ali flirts with the country's law minister, batting her long eyelashes and calling him darling. She kisses one of the minister's sons on the cheek and practically asks another son to marry her. All in front of the television cameras.

"Look at my hands," she tells the minister, showing off her French manicure.

"Your hands are beautiful," he responds. "I feel like kissing them."

This is the most outrageous TV program in Pakistan, one that has regularly violated conservative Islamic rules and Pakistani customs while becoming a top-rated talk show. But Ali is more than just a mouthy woman, and that's what makes this popular show truly revolutionary, even subversive.

Ali is actually a mouthy man in drag. ...

Read the rest at the link.

Secularists Rally in Istanbul

Çok güzel!

Via Little Green Footballs.

AP via Yahoo news:

BENJAMIN HARVEY, Associated Press Writer Sun Apr 29, 9:33 AM ET
ISTANBUL, Turkey - At least 300,000 Turks waving the red national flag flooded central Istanbul on Sunday to demand the resignation of the government, saying the Islamic roots of Turkey's leaders threatened to destroy the country's modern foundations.

Like the protesters — who gathered for the second large anti-government demonstration in two weeks — Turkey's powerful secular military has accused Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of tolerating radical Islamic circles.

"They want to drag Turkey to the dark ages," said 63-year-old Ahmet Yurdakul, a retired government employee who attended the protest.

More than 300,000 people took part in a similar rally in Ankara two weeks ago. ...

Go to the link for the rest. Meanwhile, AFP (via Yahoo) puts the turnout at over a million:

Nicolas Cheviron Sun Apr 29, 9:42 AM ET
ISTANBUL (AFP) - More than one million people took part in a mass rally here Sunday in support of secularism and democracy amid a tense stand-off between the Islamist-rooted government and the army over presidential elections.

The crowd, carrying red-and-white Turkish flags and portraits of founding father Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, filled Istanbul's sprawling Caglayan square in a demonstration organized by some 600 non-governmental organizations.

"Turkey is secular and will remain secular," "Neither Sharia, nor coup d'etat, democratic Turkey," they chanted.

Police at the scene told AFP that the number of demonstrators was well over one million. Organizers said the rally drew people from all over Turkey and abroad.

The Istanbul demonstration followed a similar one in Ankara on April 14 that attracted up to 1.5 million people, according to some estimates. ...

Muslim children trash classroom; anti-Semitic attack in France.

Via IRIS:

Nine year-old Muslim children destroy a Dutch classroom because of a discussion of a pig on a farm and the only response is to expunge pigs from the curriculum.
A school in Amsterdam has halted lessons on rural life because the Islamic children refused to talk about pigs. Reporting this, Alderman Lodewijk Asscher said he wants to take "tough measures." Subsidies for all kinds of dubious groups must stop and parents of unruly children penalised financially.

Asscher told newspaper De Volkskrant: "A primary school in Amsterdam-Noord has decided no longer to teach about living on a farm. Various pupils began to demolish the classroom when the pig came up for discussion. Apparently it has gone that far. These children, 9, 10 years old, have not been given even the most elementary rules at home about why they must go to school."

Vicious anti-Jewish attack in France.
A 22-year-old Jewish woman suffered a vicious anti-Semitic attack by two men of Middle Eastern appearance in a train station in Marseille, France on Thursday night.

The attackers tore the Star of David chain from around the young woman’s neck, lifted up her shirt, painted a swastika on her stomach and then fled the scene.

Local police opened an investigation into the attack but had not yet found the assailants.

American Islamic Congress - latest news

From Zainab al-Suwaij, American Islamic Congress, via e-mail bulletin:

I just returned from a month-long trip to the Middle East, where we conducted three training conferences for young reformers in:

- Amman, Jordan, where we brought together 25 young leaders from eight countries for in-depth training in techniques of non-violent activism;
- Karbala, Iraq, where despite constant danger we taught 27 young Iraqis how to promote non-violent methods of conflict resolution and national reconciliation;
- Ifrane, Morocco , where we joined with the student Human Rights Club of Al-Akhawayn University to host 45 young Middle Eastern leaders from 12 countries to lay the foundations for a region-wide civil rights movement.

While I enjoyed my trip, my experiences reminded me of the challenges before us. The day I arrived in Morocco from Iraq, for example, multiple suicide bombings rocked the country. I was instructing young activists on implementing nonviolent reform at one moment, only to find myself comforting Moroccans devastated by the tragic actions of radical fundamentalists. The attacks (repeated the next day in Algiers and four days later in Casablanca) provided a stark example of the crises - and opportunities - that stand before us. Radicals seek to dominate the Muslim community. Basic human rights are denied by unelected rulers. And terrorists threaten the safety of all of us, regardless of our religious beliefs.

But we will not be silent in the face of these challenges.

Entering our sixth year, the American Islamic Congress has been at the forefront in advancing a platform of tolerance and understanding by creating grassroots networks for reform in the Muslim world and by promoting the moderate Muslim voice to the American public. We rely on the support of kind people of all backgrounds who are committed to promoting peace and progress - and to helping us move forward a positive agenda for the Muslim community. ...

Go to the link to find out more about AIC, and consider helping them out if you can.

Iran: Hunger Strike for Political Prisoners

From Ghazal Omid, via e-mail:

Hunger Strike in Iran Started April 7, 2007 Means Life or Death
For One of 39 Political Prisoners, Possibly All

On April 22, 2007, political prisoner Mr. Khalid Hardani was carried to the medical center of Rajai Shahar prison by two of his fellow inmates, Mr. Nasser Khirolahi and Mr. Shahin Aryanejad, due to Mr. Khaled Hardani's worsening heart condition. Mr. Hardani, who was transferred from Evin Prison to Rajai Shahar approximately two months ago, has had his heart medication intentionally withheld, and his physical well-being is worsening each day.

This hunger strike is a last resort for these political prisoners, who have no way whatsoever to alert people worldwide to their conditions in the prison, and illuminates the disinterest of UN Representatives, Red Cross/Red Crescent, and Amnesty International. Mr. Khaled Hardani and another 38 political prisoners from a number of prisons in Iran could possibly die as a result of this official apathy.

In the clinic, Mr. Khaled Hardani was not allowed to see a physician, and when the prisoners resisted pressure to end the strike, they were savagely beaten inside the clinic, in full view of medical staff, by professional torture master Aslan Beghi. Neither prisoner received any medical care, not for the hunger strike's physical effects, nor for the injuries from physical torture. Instead, they were dragged back to their filthy cells to recover on their own from the savage beatings.

Mr. Hardani, whose cardiac condition requires medication, has received no medication for his heart condition from prison medical officials since his transfer from Evin nearly 2 months ago.

Repeated letters and calls to officials of Amnesty International by Ghazal Omid (www.ghazalomid.com), Iranian dissident and the official spokesperson for 19 of the 39 political prisoners, have not been returned. UN Human Rights Commission member states have also not responded to repeated calls for intervention.

Ghazal Omid
www.ghazalomid.com/videos

Representative Jenson on SB2, HB2007

State Representative Bob Jenson (R - Pendleton, District 58) has issued the following statement (via e-mail) following last week's vote on two important gay equality bills in the State of Oregon:

For the past few weeks I have heard from many of you expressing your concerns pro and con regarding SB2 and HB2007. By now most of you are aware that SB2 bans discrimination based on sexual orientation in housing, employment and public places throughout the state. HB 2007 creates a method of legal recognition for same-sex relationships in Oregon, namely domestic partnerships.

As your representative I feel a responsibility to listen to your concerns and try to make your wishes heard. Sometimes this is not difficult when the issue is one that is fairly similarly viewed within the district. However, it is an entirely different concern when there are widely divergent opinions on a particular issue.

This was the situation with the above two bills. Adding to the complexity was the complication of religion and moral beliefs, and people’s rights. While there were many people with strong religious convictions that opposed these bills there were also a large number of church groups that strongly supported the legislation. Given that situation, I had to make a very difficult vote.

While I respect the position of Oregon voters on Measure 36, which banned same-sex marriage, I also know that many voters who did so believed same-sex couples should have some protections for their relationships in the form of a civil union or domestic partnership.

Many voters further stated that discrimination in things like jobs and housing is wrong. Having lived through the civil rights years where the differential treatment of people who were different was exposed as unfair I believe that our state is strengthened when all who live and work here are equal under the law. No one should be fired from a job, denied a table in a restaurant, or blocked from making medical decisions for a loved one in an emergency simply because of their sexual orientation. Discrimination has no place in our state, and as such I felt compelled to vote for the bills.


Interestingly there is something of a precedent from our district regarding this issue. When former Rep. Chuck Norris held this legislative seat in 1989, HB 2784 came to the floor on one of the last days of the session, July 2nd. That bill essentially stated that sexual orientation was a category that could not be intimidated against. The outcome of that vote was 31-29 with Rep. Norris being the deciding vote.

Thank you, Representative Jenson, for your courage in making this difficult decision. You did the right thing.