Wednesday, January 26, 2005
a.k.a Abu Ammar

In Memory of a Freedom Fighter: Yasser Arafat

 
Arafat's legacy will be written and rewritten by those who believed in his vision of Palestinian legitimacy, sovereignty and national independence, says Leila Diab.

 
With an olive branch held in his hand, and a memorable trademark vision of a Palestinian freedom fighter that so proudly wore a black and white checkered Palestinian keffiyeh, the President of Palestine, Yasser Arafat reached his journey's end. Upon his passing on November 11, 2004, President Arafat, better known as Abu Ammar, symbolized an eternal life struggle of liberation, Statehood, hope and peace for the Palestinian people and their neighbors.

In a life filled with many obstacles and struggles to survive, Abu Ammar's intelligent skills of extinguishing internal and external circumstances were innate gifts of a skillfully statesman. He had won the hearts and minds of the international community's world leaders, and the Muslim world. While the Palestinian people trusted his determination to achieve a Palestinian State, on November 15, 1988, the Palestinian National Council in Algiers adopted a Declaration of Independence of the State of Palestine. Despite Arafat's years of exile outside and inside Palestine; and his caged presence in Ramallah as the President of Palestine, he never faltered or abandoned his will to fight for the rights and independence of the Palestinian people. Arafat lived his life with the belief that 'through many great struggles comes victory.'

Arafat's legacy will be written and rewritten by those who believed in his vision of Palestinian legitimacy, sovereignty and national independence. Unfortunately, there will be those who ascribe to the destruction or denial of all of the above.

President Arafat's undeniable genius legacy and the heroic quintessence of the Palestinian people's will to resist oppression and an illegitimate occupation of its people and land, has endured in the struggle to triumph, as well as, to survive antagonistic foes, foes who are on the wrong side of international law and covenants.

Arafat's life was fraught with its ups and downs, calculations and miscalculations. However, his compassionate message and ability to extend his hand in peace, friendship and welcome people from all over the world to see, listen and hear the injustices of the Palestinian people in an effort to revive an eluding peace, were endless.

Arafat's legacy will hopefully be remembered as his undying connection to the Palestinian people, their identity, and to the land of Palestine. And as a man who wanted peace, but never lived to fulfill his dream.

The befallen Palestinian revolutionary leader, Abu Ammar, will be remembered as the 'ruhms' (symbol) of self-determination, the father of the revolution, and the President of Palestine. His roots and the olive tree are still alive.

When Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian leadership were exiled in Lebanon from 1970 to 1982, many prominent world leaders, African Americans, Native Americans, congressmen, and delegations of peacemakers would travel to Lebanon on fact finding group missions to visit the Palestinian refugee camps and hold special meetings with Chairman Arafat, in search of peace. The first thing they noticed when they walked into Arafat's Beirut office was a large bright green banner outlined in a gold fringe, with an embroidered written message on it. It said, "One does not live twice to see glory."

President Yasser Arafat saw glory more than once. May he rest in peace.


Posted at 10:29 am by R7fel
Make a comment  

Tuesday, January 25, 2005
"The Passion of the Christ" snubbed

Oscaring Mel Gibson

By Patrick Hynes
Published 12/22/2004 12:06:02 AM

Both the Golden Globes and the Broadcast Film Critics passed over The Passion of The Christ for any major nominations this year. The American Film Institute made no mention of The Passion in its 2004 best films of the year announcement. And according to USA Today's Oscar Oracle, The Passion isn't on the radar screen for even a single nomination when the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences hands out nominations at the end of January.

In the shadow of a public debate over the propriety of the words "Merry Christmas" at department stores, a big battle in the culture war is looming. The Passion of The Christ, one of the most powerful, commercially successful, and, by any measure, brilliant films of the year is being utterly rejected by the Hollywood elites this award season, demonstrating yet again their tone deaf disdain for all things middle-American.

What's going on here? Well, the cultural elites took a whooping on Election Day, 2004. And they are taking it out on Mel Gibson.

The official reasons for denying The Passion an Oscar nomination are fivefold. Herewith, I will attempt to discredit them all:

The Passion is just a sadomasochistic bloodbath with quasi-religious overtones.

The body count in The Passion is one (actually it's zero, but that argument is too big a leap for the average Academy member, so we'll just stick with one), far fewer than Mel Gibson's 1995 Best Picture winner Braveheart, 1974's The Godfather Part II, or even 1991's The Silence of the Lambs in which the main character is a cannibal.

In 1994 The Academy nominated Pulp Fiction in which an overdosed woman is resuscitated with a hypodermic stab to the heart. Fargo, in which a murder victim is shredded to bits in a wood chipper, was nominated for Best Picture in 1996. And two years later Saving Private Ryan was nominated because it depicted some of the most graphic and realistic war scenes in cinematic history, not despite it.

The Academy has a long-running love affair with blood and guts, so the idea that The Passion was just too gory doesn't hold water.

The Academy doesn't do religious films.

This argument is a little sturdier. But on closer examination, we determine it, too is a fallacy. Ben Hur won the Best Picture Oscar in 1959. Schindler's List won in 1993. The Ten Commandments was nominated in 1956. The Diary of Anne Frank was nominated in 1959, as was The Nun's Story. The Exorcist was nominated in 1973.

Just last year The Lord of The Rings: The Return of The King won the Oscar for Best Picture and its director Peter Jackson won for Best Director. Said J.R.R. Tolkien of his master work, "The Lord of the Rings is, of course, a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision."

The Passion just reflects Mel Gibson's obscure brand of extreme Catholicism.

Not true. Regardless of Mel Gibson's own denominational oddities, the film depicts an event no orthodox Christian -- Catholic or Protestant -- denies occurred. Contemporary non-Christian texts from Roman Jewish historian Josephus substantiate at least the gist of what Gibson captures on screen.

Moreover, Martin Scorsese was nominated for his direction of 1988's The Last Temptation of Christ, which includes artistic creations for which there is no scriptural support.

The factual errors disqualify the film for any nominations.

There are only two serious "errors" in The Passion so far as I understand this argument. The first is that none of the Gospels has Satan moving through the crowd of Jews during Christ's passion, as Gibson does in the film.

This is a legitimate theological gripe, but a cinematic one? Besides, who's to say Satan wasn't there? Satan obviously took a considerable interest in the life, suffering, and death of Jesus.

The second criticism is that the ten graphic minutes Gibson dedicates to the flogging of Jesus is drenched in gruesome detail for which there is no scriptural substantiation. Matthew, Mark and John only say Christ was flogged; they mention no amount of time and the severity is never indicated. But it would be irrational to believe the flogging was mild considering the intensity of Jesus' suffering throughout the balance of his Passion, about which the Gospels leave little to the imagination.

Regardless, given the Academy has named Titanic Best Picture and nominated Oliver Stone for Best Director (JFK), we can reasonably assert that historical accuracy is not a prerequisite for Oscar glory.

The Oscars don't do foreign language films.

This myth actually applies to the Golden Globes, not the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. The Academy nominated La Vita é Bella (AKA: Life is Beautiful) for Best Picture in 1998. The film's leading man, Roberto Benigni, won the Best Actor that year.

This is not a legitimate reason to pass over The Passion.

Red Staters may have won on Election Day. But the cultural elites will always have Hollywood.


Patrick Hynes is an account executive with the Republican consulting firm Marsh Copsey + Scott and the proprietor of the websites www.passionforfairness.com and www.crushkerry.com.


Posted at 02:27 pm by R7fel
Make a comment  

Monday, January 24, 2005
America in Full Decadence Mode

Does Homosexual Marriage Signal America's Final Undoing?

Chuck Baldwin


The assault against traditional marriage is now in full swing. Across the country, judges, mayors, legislators, and governors are calling for the legalization and moral acceptance of homosexual marriage. Many people wonder if such an event signals the beginning of America's ultimate demise. It might.

Social and cultural acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle certainly contributed to the collapse of many empires of antiquity, including the Canaanite, Persian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Greek, and Roman empires. In fact, Senator Zell Miller of Georgia recently quoted noted historian Arnold Toynbee on the floor of the U.S. Senate as saying, "Of the 22 civilizations that have appeared in history, 19 of them collapsed when they reached the moral state America is in today." That statement is even more startling when one realizes that the statement was made some 30 years ago! If history is any teacher, one must conclude that the acceptance of homosexuality by any mainstream culture tends to doom that society!

That the United States has chosen to embrace the homosexual lifestyle by granting it legal protection, even political correctness, reveals just how depraved our once great nation has become. Should we now be shocked that homosexual marriage is on the verge of becoming a reality? It was inevitable.

Consider the positions of both major parties on the subject of homosexuality. For years, both Democrats and Republicans have excused and embraced this deviant behavior. Both President Clinton and President Bush have promoted open homosexuals to high public office. Both Clinton and Bush have embraced the "don't ask, don't tell" policy of allowing homosexuals to serve in the U.S. armed forces. Neither party has been willing to clearly denounce homosexual conduct.

President Bush's pro-homosexuality record is especially disturbing considering the fact that he has publicly proclaimed himself to be both a conservative and a Christian. Furthermore, his position on homosexual marriage is full of obfuscation.

While stating his support for a constitutional amendment prohibiting homosexual marriage, President Bush has enthusiastically endorsed "civil unions" for homosexuals. However, can anyone successfully explain the difference between "marriage" and "civil union?" For all practical purposes, they are one and the same.

It should be obvious to everyone that President Bush is playing word games with the American people. He wants the support of both homosexuals and conservative Christians. He isn't the least bit interested in providing bold, decisive leadership for the American people regarding our nation's moral depravity!

Furthermore, instead of merely being "troubled" by all the illegal homosexual marriages being conducted across the country, he should shoulder his responsibility as America's Chief Executive and "take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

Back in 1996, Congress overwhelmingly passed and President Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) into law. DOMA clearly states that marriage is only "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife." Under DOMA, a spouse is defined as, "a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or wife."

Accordingly, Phyllis Schlafly is correct when she insists that President Bush should instruct the Internal Revenue Service to require joint returns to include proof of lawful heterosexual marriage thereby enabling the IRS to identify and reject joint returns claiming fake marriages. He should also pressure Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (and any other governor) to enforce state laws against sodomite marriage or risk losing federal funds. He should also instruct all federal agencies to energetically enforce compliance with DOMA.

Furthermore, if President Bush was seriously opposed to same sex marriages, he would loudly and loquaciously lobby Congress to pass Rep. John Hostettler's bill (H.R. 3313) to prevent federal courts from overturning DOMA. That he is doing none of the above proves that his support for traditional marriage is shallow at best and perhaps even nonexistent.

Beyond that, the willingness of our political and judicial leaders to embrace homosexuality reveals their rejection of God's moral law and authority. It is no coincidence that within a matter of weeks after the White House and federal courts collaborated to remove the Ten Commandments from the Alabama Judicial Building in Montgomery that the entire nation would be embroiled in a fever pitch effort to legalize same sex marriage. God will not be mocked. When one sows to the wind, he reaps a whirlwind.

By accepting homosexuality, America is now fueling the flames of debauchery. When homosexuality is finally and fully accepted by American law, pedophilia and other more onerous behavior will not be far behind. As such, America is on the verge of a self- induced implosion.

If the American people do not quickly reject the leadership of the two major parties and seek a radical return to moral and constitutional leadership, there is nothing left for America but a steady and certain undoing.

Furthermore, it's not as if the American people have no choice. Michael Peroutka is running for President of the United States on the Constitution Party ticket. He is the only candidate for president that is willing to face the issue of homosexual marriage from both a constitutional and moral perspective.

In fact, people who truly believe in the importance of preserving traditional marriage have only one choice: Michael Peroutka and the Constitution Party. To support either the Democrat or Republican candidate for president is a wasted vote and will only serve to facilitate America's slippery slide toward moral upheaval.

Posted at 09:13 pm by R7fel
Make a comment  

Tinkering With Disaster

 Outcry over Creation of GM Smallpox Virus

  By Steve Connor
  The Independent U.K.

  Saturday 22 January 2005

  Senior scientific advisers to the World Health Organisation (WHO) have recommended the creation of a genetically modified version of the smallpox virus to counter any threat of a bioterrorist attack.

  Permitting researchers to engineer the genes of one of the most dangerous infections known to man would make it easier to develop new drugs against smallpox, the scientists said. But the man who led the successful global vaccination campaign to eradicate smallpox from the wild said he opposed the move on the grounds that the scientific benefits were not worth the risks to public health.

  Professor Donald Henderson, of the Centre for Biosecurity at the University of Pittsburgh, said he feared that tinkering with the genetic makeup of the variola virus - which causes smallpox - might accidentally produce a more lethal form of the disease.

  "What I worry about is that there is rather too much done in this area and the minute you start fooling around with it in various ways, I think there is a danger," Professor Henderson said. "I'd be happier if we were not doing it and the simple reason is I just don't think it serves a purpose I can support. The less we do with the smallpox virus and the less we do in the way of manipulation at this point I think the better off we are."

  Laboratory stocks of smallpox are stored at only two locations - one in America and one in Russia - but there are fears that samples of the virus may have fallen into the hands of terrorists.

  Scientists advising the WHO believe that creating a GM form of the virus would accelerate research into developing new antivirals. The WHO is due to consider the recommendations of its scientific committee at the world health assembly in May.

  Four years ago, scientists in Australia genetically modified a mousepox virus and inadvertently created a highly virulent strain that could not be stopped by vaccination. But the WHO insisted the latest proposal to engineer the human smallpox virus was inherently safer.

  Professor Geoffrey Smith of Imperial College London, who chairs the WHO committee for variola virus research, said American scientists simply wanted to insert a jellyfish gene, which produced a glow under fluorescent light, in order to see the virus better under the microscope.

  "The reason why the proposal was made and the reason why the committee was prepared to consider it was that it is clear that there is a need to develop drugs against the virus," Professor Smith said. "The quickest way to screen a large database of compounds is to have an automated way and if you have a virus that expresses the green fluorescent protein you can do the drug screening in a much more rapid and automated way."

  It is understood there are seven recommendations in the proposal, including permission to allow relatively large fragments of the virus - up to 20 per cent of its entire genome - to be shipped from the two secure laboratories to other research institutes in the world. Another recommendation allows Russian and US laboratories to snip small fragments of the virus and insert them into other members of the same pox-virus family.

  Smallpox is one of the biggest killers in the history of infectious diseases. At least 300 million people died of it in the 20th century alone. It was eradicated in 1977.


Posted at 04:53 pm by R7fel
Make a comment  

Sunday, January 23, 2005
Iman Al-Hams

Parents petition Israeli High Court over daughter killed by Israeli army
Report, PCATI, 23 January 2005

Relatives of 13 year-old Palestinian girl Iman Al Hams, mourn over her body at the family house during her funeral in Rafah refugee camp, southern Gaza Strip, Tuseday, Oct 5. 2004. The girl was shot and killed by Israeli soldiers, according to local and army sources, when she wandered from her normal path to school. (AP Photo/Khalil Hamra)
The parents of Iman Al-Hams and the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel (PCATI) petition the High Court of Justice demanding that the IDF investigate the giving of illegal open fire orders to the soldiers at the “Girit” military post. In a petition filed to the High Court of Justice today, January 23, the petitioners maintain that there is evidence that the soldiers stationed at the “Girit” military outpost were given blatantly illegal orders stating that they must shoot to kill anyone, including civilians who do not endanger anyone’s life, without even resorting to the procedure regulating the arrest of suspects.

The petitioners also demand that the supervision of the investigation be taken out of the hands of the Military Attorney’s office because of its involvement in the drafting of the open fire regulations.

The girl Iman Al-Hams, 13 years old, was killed by IDF fire on October 5, 2004, while on her way to school. After she was hit, the battalion commander, Captain “R” “confirmed” the killing. The internal military investigation conducted by the division commander exonerated the soldiers stationed at the outpost from all blame. However, evidence given by some soldiers that reached the press suggested that illegal actions took place during the above incident.

The Military Investigative Police investigation of the event raised a suspicion that the battalion commander confirmed the killing of the girl. He was charged with the “illegal use of arms”. No soldier was charged with the girl’s death.

Imam Al Hams’ family and the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel (PCATI), represented by attorneys Lea Tsemel and Michael Sfard, demanded to view the classified investigation material and, after 6 weeks, Attorney Sfard was allowed to see some of it. In the petition it is stated:

“After studying the material, Attorney Sfard discerned that central, significant points were missing from the Military Investigative Police inquiry. This lead to the consolidation of our position, the result of which is this petition: the investigation of the severe incident of the killing of the girl Imam Al-Hams focused only only on finding compatibility between the lethal bullet and the soldier who fired it, and the clarification of the circumstances of the killing confirmation.

The Military Investigative Police and the Military Attorney’s Office did not examine the issue of the commanders’ responsibility for the event, nor the question of how it came about that tens of elite IDF fighters opened fire on a “figure“ who did not endanger anyone’s life (if we accept their claim that they did not distinguish that it was a 13 year old girl) and, in addition, did not first carry out the procedure for the arrest of suspects, or give the “figure” a chance to surrender or prove that she has no intention of harming anyone”.

In addition, it is claimed in the petition that the investigation material contains evidence that illegal orders were allegedly given resulting in the girl’s death. The giving and the execution of the order, according to the petition, constitute a war crime and are grounds for criminal liability for the girl’s death.

The petition also includes the demand that the responsibility for the investigation be taken out of the hands of the Military Attorney’s Office because of its involvement in the drafting of open fire regulations and transferred to the civil prosecution.


Posted at 07:39 pm by R7fel
Make a comment  

Carlos Delgado

A man of principle

Delgado makes headlines speaking his mind

Free agent Carlos Delgado gets taste of New York last year after refusing to stand with teammates during playing of 'God Bless America.'

Bland, limp, mindless quotes are the general rule among professional athletes these days, diplomacy valued far above candor when it comes to talking about anything deeper then the dip of a slider or the pop of a fastball.

But Carlos Delgado is different. A 32-year-old Puerto Rican who has spent the past 12 seasons playing for a Canadian baseball team, Delgado fiercely embraces his American right to pretty much say whatever the heck he wants, whenever the heck he wants to.

Don't be fooled: He isn't a loudmouth. To the contrary, those who know him well bristle at the idea he might be seen as boorish and use words like "soft-spoken" and "respectful" and "polite" to describe him.

Still, those who don't know him well might think otherwise. In particular, the thousands of fans at Yankee Stadium last summer who booed him for refusing to stand with his teammates during the singing of "God Bless America" in protest of the war in Iraq might see him as a pot-stirrer who may soon have an even bigger forum to air his views if he signs a free agent contract with the Mets.

"To be honest, that's just crazy," says Blue Jays GM J.P. Ricciardi, actually breaking into laughter at the thought. "Carlos is not like that. He's a smart guy, there's no doubt about it, and he's a worldly guy. You won't see him just reading the funny pages in the paper. But he's not a preacher, not a guy who's going to be on the front and back pages of tabloids for the wrong reasons. That's not his style."

Indeed, Delgado carried out much of his protest in silence last season. No one even noticed his retreat to the clubhouse during the song until he commented on it midway through the year.

At that point, however, it was hard to ignore.

"I think it's the stupidest war ever," he told the Toronto Star in July. "Who are you fighting against? You're just getting ambushed now. We have more people dead now, after the war, than during the war. You've been looking for weapons of mass destruction. Where are they at? You've been looking for over a year. Can't find them. I don't support that. I don't support what they do. I think it's just stupid."

That's a label he would also use to describe the United States' use of Vieques, a tiny island off the mainland of Puerto Rico, as a location for testing its Navy's military weapons. Not surprisingly, Delgado was the first high-profile athlete to speak out against America's six-decade presence in Vieques, echoing the complaints of many of the island's residents who claimed that uranium-depleted shells used in the testing were causing increased cancer rates and other illnesses.

He became involved in the Vieques protests after his father, Carlos Sr., introduced him to Ismael Guadalupe, a friend of the elder Delgado's from the Socialist Party in Puerto Rico. Guadalupe was a long-time leader of the protest movement, according to the Star, who had been imprisoned for six months in 1979 after trespassing on the Navy base.

"He wanted to help out with more than just the situation with the Navy," Guadalupe told the Star last summer. "He wanted to help the people there. He wanted to help the children."

Delgado certainly isn't the only athlete to make a political statement on the field or court, but the motivation isn't always the same. Former Nuggets guard Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf's 1996 protest against the playing of the national anthem was based on his Muslim beliefs and, after sitting during the playing of the song - in violation of NBA rules which state all players must stand on the foul line - Abdul-Rauf was suspended without pay for two days before saying he would stand during the anthem but pray silently.

Toni Smith, a basketball player for Manhattanville College, turned her back on the American Flag during the anthem in 2002-03 season as an anti-war statement and says she felt a sense of duty not to lie to herself about her opinion by simply standing still during the anthem. In a phone interview last week, she said she can understand what may have motivated Delgado to take his stand.

"Celebrities so often get praised for speaking out, particularly when they express a majority view," Smith says. "But it should also work the other way. We should embrace those people who use their fame to also voice a minority one. My decision was a spontaneous one. It didn't affect my teammates in any way at all and that was important to me because it wasn't designed to be anything more than a personal statement. I didn't want to do anything that would hurt the team."

Delgado, apparently, agrees. His agent, David Sloane, has said several times this winter that if Delgado's new club has a rule on players standing for "God Bless America" then Delgado will follow it.

The Mets do not have such a policy and several players frequently missed the playing of the song last season because they ran into the clubhouse for one reason or another - like changing into a fresh jersey. Major League Baseball does not have any firm rules regarding players' presence for "God Bless America" and a spokesman for the league said there weren't any firm rules requiring each player to stand for the pregame anthem, either.

Ricciardi said Delgado did not approach him before beginning his protest and pointed out that, while he personally disagrees with Delgado's opinion, the club had no rules about standing for the song and thus, had no problem with Delgado's choice.

"Look, he doesn't like wearing a hat much either during batting practice and infield," Ricciardi says, "but we have a rule about that: You've got to wear a hat. So what does Carlos do? He wears the hat. He's never been about doing anything that would disrupt the team."

The Mets are surely much more interested in Delgado's career .282 batting average or the fact that he hasn't hit less than 30 home runs since 1996. Landing Delgado would give GM Omar Minaya a trio of Hispanic stars - along with recently signed Carlos Beltran and Pedro Martinez -to lead the Mets back to respectability and, in their minds, competitiveness with the Yankees for the city's limelight.

"He is a unique player," says Al Leiter, who played with Delgado in 1995-96 and was part of the Marlins' contingent that tried to woo him last week. "He has all the tools and is a presence in the lineup every day."

Earlier this winter, Delgado visited Sloane and spent a few nights at his Florida home. Delgado wanted to take a cerebral approach to his free agency, so the two men examined each of the 29 other clubs besides Toronto and created a list of places Delgado would be interested in going.

"He wants to make a thorough, well-thought-out decision," Sloane says. "That's what you'd expect from Carlos."

But wherever he ends up, his protest will always be remembered. "One thing about New York is that they are passionate," Delgado said after being booed in the Bronx. "You know what they like and don't like."

At this point, it's safe to say most Mets fans like him at first base next season, whether he's sitting, standing or just plain-old stretching once the seventh inning ends.

Originally published on January 23, 2005


Posted at 06:40 pm by R7fel
Make a comment  

Saturday, January 22, 2005
Take This War and Shove It!

Why I'll Refuse to Fight in This Immoral War

    By George Solomou
    The Independent U.K.

    Friday 21 January 2005

Every individual soldier has the moral right to decide whether he will put his life on the line.

    Earlier this week, I came out publicly against the war in Iraq. I'm not the only member of the Labour Party to be opposed to our military participation in this American-led adventure, nor am I the only soldier. In fact, there growing vocal minority within the Territorial Army that is against the war. Nonetheless I am the first one to make it clear, in public, that if called to serve in Iraq, I will refuse.

    This has not been a decision arrived at impulsively. I have never believed in the rightness of this war; in fact I was on the big anti-war March in February 2003. Even then - before the absence of the weapons of mass destruction that Prime Minister Blair and President Bush cited as the principal reason to rush to war was admitted by all - I was astounded that they could take us to war when it was clear the majority of the population was opposed. Members of the Labour Party at the time were talking about practicing an "ethical foreign policy", and yet there was nothing ethical about the way this was being planned and sold to the public.

    It was not as though there was no alternative at the time. Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector, and UN Secretary General Kofi Annan had both pressed for more time before the final decisions were taken. And much of the rest of the world, both governments and their peoples, were saying, "Let's get this investigation sorted before we start blowing up human beings."

    I could have quietly left the Army then, without fuss; you can resign from the Territorial Army if you've not actually been called up to serve in action. But from boyhood I had wanted to be a soldier; in fact, when I was 22 I had taken advantage of my dual Cypriot-British citizenship, and done national service for the Greek army in Cyprus. Later I had joined the TA, as a medic, and I was proud to be a part of that institution, and bound to my friends and comrades there, some of whom agreed with me about the futility, immorality and illegality of the war. None of us had been called up yet, so we succumbed to the all too human temptation to put off the evil day until it was upon us. In the end, quite a few did resign, and others who were called up deliberately failed their medical examinations.

    But although I stayed on a while longer, in the last year, when two of my comrades returned wounded, I began thinking seriously about what I could do to help end this continuing war. I began to do a lot of research, learning everything I could about the illegality and immorality of our occupation of Iraq. And I started to go on the anti-war demos that continue around the country. I listened to peace campaigners and soldiers who had been out there, and MPs like George Galloway. I would recommend similar research to any soldier who is having doubts about the war.

    Finally, one day about a month ago, I stood up at a demo in my local London borough of Hackney and just said "I want to get out of this, but what can I do?" It became clear that working with Military Families Against the War, I could make public my despair, my anger and my intention to refuse any call-up to serve in Iraq.

    I wanted to leave the TA in the public way I have because, although so many solders are against this war, they don't have a rallying point. There has to be someone who is the first to go. After that, there will be another and another and another. They're out there, the soldiers who want to make plain their refusal to part of this illegal war - I know, I've talked to them.

    Many people, even those who agree with my views on the war, will say that it is not the place of soldiers to decide which wars they will fight; that decision must be taken by their senior officers, and ultimately by the government of the day. But you should only obey orders that are morally right. The WMD claims were untrue, and so many other lies were told in the pursuit of this war. Every individual soldier also has the moral right to decide whether he will put his life on the line. After all, it is his flesh and blood that gets wounded; that gives him the right to an opinion.

    And in the modern army, not every opinion will be the same. No longer do soldiers come from a uniform cultural background. The Army wants lots of ethnic groups, and now that they've got them, they have to accept that there will be different points of view. Think of the position of Muslims in the Army. My own background as Greek Cypriot has made me aware of some distasteful things that the British military did in Cyprus in the Fifties; so I too have a different perspective. If the Government wants their soldiers to fight, they will have to be clear and honest about what they are asking them to do.

    I'm proud to be part of the military family that is against the war. There will be more soldiers coming out soon, and I'll be proud to stand next to them on 19 March at the anti-war demo in London. We can help stop this illegal and immoral war, and that is our duty now.

    If any soldier would like to contact George Solomou or Military Families Against the War, they can do so at the Military Families Against the War Website.


Posted at 11:01 pm by R7fel
Make a comment  

GOD Always Has the Answer




By: Bill McKibben

Have you ever been in a hopeless situation? Perhaps it seemed that nothing good could come out of what was happening. If you have been there, you can empathize with those who experience the helpless feeling that comes at such a time.

Acts 27:18-20 is part of an account written by Luke about a sea journey that came to a point where the situation looked hopeless. He wrote, “And we being exceedingly tossed with a tempest, the next day they lightened the ship; And the third day we cast out with our own hands the tackling of the ship. And when neither sun nor stars in many days appeared, and no small tempest lay on us, all hope that we should be saved was then taken away.” It seemed things could not possibly get any worse.

Paul the Apostle had appealed his case to Caesar and was being taken to Rome. After the ship set sail, there were problems—the weather turned against them. The ship floundered in the tempest, and all hope of rescue or of safely making it to land was gone. There was nothing left to do but wait for the end. However, though the men on board that ship were certainly helpless in the face of such a storm, they were not hopeless. You see, God was aware of their situation. With God, we are never hopeless.
A number of accounts in the Word of God illustrate this. In Mark 5, we read of the man who lived among the tombs of Gadera. A demonic spirit possessed him, and that spirit had such power that when the people tried to bind him with chains, he broke the fetters. No doubt it seemed like a hopeless situation to the people in the town of Gadera—but it was not. One day Jesus made His way into the region, and when He came upon this poor, tormented man, He told the evil spirit, “Come out of him.” Just a short time later, the people of Gadera came and found that man clothed and in his right mind, and seated at the feet of Jesus. There are no hopeless situations with God!

In 2 Chronicles we read of a king named Jehoshaphat. He was confronted by a military situation that appeared to be desperate. His enemies, the Moabites and the Ammonites, had decided to come down and destroy his land, and destruction was imminent. He looked at all the resources at his disposal, and realized that they were insufficient—they were going to lose the battle. Jehoshaphat took the right steps. He went to God and told him the situation, saying, “Neither know we what to do . . . our eyes are upon thee.” In what seemed like a hopeless situation, he turned to God for hope, who intervened on his behalf. God always has the answer, even when it seems there is none! We serve a God in whom all hope dwells.

I recently heard a story about a man, in a country overseas, who had spent his life building a home, a little business, and an orphanage next to the business. He was trying to do his best to win people in his area to Christ. His country was engaged in a civil war, and one day soldiers came through and completely destroyed the orphanage, his business, and his home. As he sat there and watched the smoke going up from his life’s work, someone came to him and said, “It’s hopeless; it is all gone.” The man looked up and said, “But we still have Christ!” What inspiring words! When all is gone, if we have Christ, we are not hopeless.

When Luke penned the words about his sea voyage with the Apostle Paul, he was looking back at quite a momentous journey. They were in a tempest like none they had ever seen before. They had given up every hope of being saved. An interesting thing happened about that time, though. The Apostle Paul appeared on deck. He said to the people on the ship, “And now I exhort you to be of good cheer.”

Speculate for a moment how those people might have reacted to Paul’s words. Don’t you love it when people come to you and say, “Cheer up!” when you are going through a trial? Oh, we may smile and say, “Thank you,” but what we would like to say to them is, “You don’t have a clue as to what is happening. You don’t know the pain I’m going through. You don’t know how hard it is on my job, in my family, with my children. You don’t understand!”

But maybe they do understand! Maybe they know the God who brings hope. Maybe they know that God can take a seemingly impossible situation and turn it around through His power. Paul told the people that day, “Be of good cheer: for there shall be no loss of any man’s life among you, but of the ship. For there stood by me this night the angel of God, whose I am, and whom I serve, Saying, Fear not, Paul; . . . lo, God hath given thee all them that sail with thee. Wherefore, sirs, be of good cheer: for I believe God.” Situations are not hopeless if we believe God!

Several years ago, I was pastoring a small church in central California. My wife and I had two children, and life was going smoothly. Then we found that we had another child on the way, and that was a blessing. Early one Thanksgiving morning, we took a trip to the hospital and a little girl was born. Even when it is your second or third child, birth is such a miracle. We were in awe and so happy as we prepared to take our new little daughter home.

As we were packing to leave the hospital, the doctor came in and said, “I would like to take an X-ray of your baby. I heard something funny with her heart.” They did the X-ray and the doctor said, “There is nothing to worry about.” I was relieved, but then he added, “However, you should bring her in tomorrow.” The next day, we did so. He listened to her heart and said, “There is nothing to worry about, but I would like for you to make an appointment with a specialist at the children’s hospital about an hour from here.”

We went home and made the appointment, and about one week later we made the trek to the city of Fresno, to the office of a pediatric cardiologist. He listened to her heart, and finally said, “I don’t think there is anything to worry about, but I would like to schedule her for a test at the hospital.” I was getting tired of hearing that there was nothing to worry about but that more tests were needed.

I still remember driving down Highway 384, looking at the fruit trees on both sides. The trees had no leaves, and that is how I felt—a sort of dead feeling. Our baby was in a car seat in the back, and my wife was sitting next to me. I looked over at her and saw the tears running down her face. Finally she took my hand and said, “What are we going to do?” I did not feel very brave, and my words seemed a bit hollow, but I said to her, “I guess we will do what we have always done—we will just trust God.” I did not have a lot of faith that day, but I did not know what else to do. I felt so helpless.

We went home and laid our little girl in her cradle. We knelt down next to it and prayed, “God, we gave her to You before she was born, and she is still Yours. You take care of her.” On the scheduled day, we went to the hospital, and there the doctor told us that our daughter had something wrong with a heart valve. He drew pictures and said, “I can hear a noise and see what is happening. There is no back pressure. This situation always creates certain problems, but it is not creating these problems this time. We will need to watch it.” Well, Someone was watching the situation long before the doctor began watching it. We now have a healthy daughter who can keep up with anyone. She may need testing later, but we are not without hope.

Whatever your situation, God has the answer. If you are living without Christ in your heart, you might think your life is a mess and that it can never be unraveled. You might think the devastation in your situation is unfixable. However, though you might be helpless, you are not hopeless. Jesus is here to make a difference in your life like He did for the man in the tombs of Gadera, for King Jehoshaphat, and for my family.

Perhaps you serve the Lord and have not told anyone that the storms have been raging in your life, that the tackling has been thrown overboard, and that you have not seen the stars for many days. Be of good cheer. The God you serve is on the scene of your life today! God can make a way when it seems there is none. Toss your helplessness at His feet, and hope in Him. God will make a way for you!

And remember, whatever your state is today, you can have a hope of eternal life—a hope that someday all tears will be gone, all suffering will be over, and you will spend eternity with God. What a glorious hope is ours!

Bill McKibben is the pastor of the Apostolic Faith Church in Richmond, California.


Posted at 08:59 am by R7fel
Make a comment  

This Is An Unhappy Life. I Don't Want To Do This!

Back to the Brothel

Srey Mom.
Naka Nathaniel/NYTimes.com
Srey Mom.

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

Published: January 22, 2005

Poipet, Cambodia — After I purchased Srey Mom from her brothel for $203 a year ago and brought her back to her village, the joy was overwhelming. Her parents and siblings had assumed she was dead, and they shrieked and hugged and cried.

I had doubts about the other sex slave I had purchased, Srey Neth, whom I wrote about on Wednesday - and who in fact is thriving and is now preparing to become a hairdresser. But I was pretty sure that Srey Mom would make it.

So I'm devastated to say that a year later, I found Srey Mom back here in the wild town of Poipet, in her old brothel. She's devastated, too - when she spotted me, she ran away to her room in the back of the brothel until she could compose herself.

"I never lie to people, but I lied to you," she said forlornly. "I said I would not come back, and I did. I didn't want to return, but I did."

Yet, sadly, such an experience is common. Aid groups find it unnerving that they liberate teenagers from the bleak back rooms of a brothel, take them to a nice shelter - and then at night the kids sometimes climb over the walls and run back to the brothel.

It would be a tidier world if slaves always sought freedom. But prostitutes often are shattered and stigmatized, and sometimes they feel that the only place they can hold their head high is in the brothel.

Srey Mom, too, has zero self-esteem, but in her case no one in her village knew her background, and she was clear of debts. The central problem, as best I can piece together the situation, is that she was addicted to methamphetamines, and that craving destroyed her will power, sending her fleeing back to the brothel so that she could get her drugs.

Over the last year, an aid group looking after Srey Mom, American Assistance for Cambodia, gave her several more chances, once bringing her to Phnom Penh to enroll in school to become a hair dresser. But each time, Srey Mom fled back to drugs and the brothel.

"Ninety-five percent of the girls take drugs," Srey Mom told me. Some girls inject morphine, but brothel owners worry that needle holes make girls look unsightly, so methamphetamine pills are most common.

Some brothel owners welcome addiction, because it makes the girls dependent upon them. But Srey Mom said that is not true of her brothel owner, Heok Tem, whom she calls "Mother."

"Mother doesn't want us to use drugs," Srey Mom said. She has an eerily close relationship with Mrs. Heok Tem, and these days that emotional bond keeps her in the brothel as much as do her debts. Mrs. Heok Tem seems to feel genuine affection for Srey Mom and truly helped in the effort to get Srey Mom to start a new life, but she also cheats Srey Mom ruthlessly - I examined the brothel's account books - and rakes in cash by pimping the girl, which exposes her to AIDS.

"It's wrong," Mrs. Heok Tem admitted. But for now, she says, she needs the money.

Srey Mom still says her dream is to start life over in her village. "I want to go away," she said. "I don't want to stay here long. I'm not happy here. ... I will just look after my younger sisters. I'm already bad, and I don't want them to become bad like me."

I don't believe it will ever happen. I hate to write anyone off, but I'm afraid that Srey Mom will remain in the brothel until she is dying of AIDS (36 percent of girls in local brothels have H.I.V., and eventually it catches up with almost all of them). I finally dared tell her my fear. I described some young women I had just seen, gaunt and groaning, dying of AIDS in Poipet, and I told her I feared she would end up the same way.

"I'm afraid of that, too," she replied, her voice breaking. "This is an unhappy life. I don't want to do this."

Maybe that's what I find saddest about Srey Mom: She is a wonderful, good-hearted girl who gives money to beggars, who offers Buddhist prayers for redemption - but who is already so broken that she seems unable to escape a world that she hates and knows is killing her.

President Bush declared in his inaugural address this week that "no one deserves to be a slave" and that advancing freedom is "the calling of our time." I can't think of a better place to start than the hundreds of thousands of girls trafficked each year, for this 21st-century version of slavery has not only grown in recent years but is also especially diabolical - it poisons its victims, like Srey Mom, so that eventually chains are often redundant.


Posted at 08:42 am by R7fel
Make a comment  

Friday, January 21, 2005
"Head On"

Two Misplaced Souls Decide They Might as Well Live

Birol Unel and his bride, Sibel Kekilli, in "Head-On," a German film set among immigrants in the gritty reaches of working-class Hamburg.
Strand Releasing
Birol Unel and his bride, Sibel Kekilli, in "Head-On," a German film set among immigrants in the gritty reaches of working-class Hamburg.

By MANOHLA DARGIS

Published: January 21, 2005

Love doesn't just hurt in the jagged German romance "Head-On"; it cuts and bleeds and even kills. A story about a lonely man and a still-lonelier woman fighting against their worlds and what often seems like their own best interests, the film has caused a stir in Germany for the murky, troubling light it sheds on the lives of the country's Turkish immigrants. Its popularity made it a fleeting social phenomenon and a minor cultural footnote. But it doesn't explain why this film about two strangers with suicidal tendencies and a deep commitment to self-aggrandizing drama is the first very good movie of this very young year.

One of the truisms about romances, even those shaded pitch black and set to banging rock music, is that you have to fall in love with the characters when they're falling for each other. It takes a long time for Cahit (Birol Unel) and Sibel (Sibel Kekilli) to get inside each other's heads, much less anywhere else.

The couple meet in a nasty, classically punk fashion at a mental institution, where they have both landed after trying to commit suicide. Cahit drove a car into a brick wall; Sibel slit her wrists, and probably not for the first time. He is dying for a drink and likely dying from drink. Meanwhile, what Sibel needs more than anything else, more than a nip or a prescription for Zoloft, is a Turkish husband.

The only daughter in a strict German-Turkish family, Sibel has a broken nose and scarred arms, and is living a life of everyday brutality.

The character was born in 1980's Hamburg, but for Fatih Akin, who both wrote and directed "Head-On," she might as well be living in another century or any cloistered society where women are kept captive by their fathers and brothers and called whores for wearing short skirts. Sibel's father happens to be a conservative Muslim. Yet for Mr. Akin, the son of Turkish guest workers who immigrated to Germany and ended up in Hamburg, where he was born, religion is not specifically, or at least exclusively, the problem. The problem is how faith becomes dogma, a prison sentence and worse.

For Sibel, the solution to that problem is a husband who can pass muster with her father, which is how she and Cahit end up under the same roof. Movingly played by both Mr. Unel and Ms. Kekilli, the couple enter the arrangement with no illusions, their relationship developing in reverse of the typical romance: they start off steeped in cynicism and doubt, and in separate beds. Cahit, who's on a long downward spiral, betrays little interest in Sibel and the world from which she comes, and it soon becomes clear why. During the couple's wincingly comic courtship, when Cahit is playing nice and sober opposite Sibel's sanctimonious father, her thuggish brother sneers about the suitor's fumbling Turkish, asking what he did with it. Cahit answers coolly, "I threw it away."

In time, Mr. Akin reveals why Cahit lets this lost lamb into his fold, though he doesn't really try to explain the character's rationale or go spelunking in the darker recesses of his mind. People are strange and filled with contradictions, and sometimes that's all you need to know.

Cahit is as haunted by the past as Sibel is plagued by the present. Both are slaves to loves: he of heartbreak, she of her father and his God. For his troubles, Cahit wears the mantle of tragic hero, a role the charismatic Mr. Unel embraces with exuberant, tangible heat. Sibel, meanwhile, embodies the film's divided conscience. Split between two cultures, yearning for life and for death, the character is struggling to declare not just her independence, but her very being.

"Head-On" may offend those who endorse cultural relativism, no matter how noxious its consequences, or forget that freedom from religion is as essential as freedom of religion. Mr. Akin's commitment to his characters is uncompromising, as is his humanity, which makes a mockery of the kind of politically correct pieties that often plague stories about cultural outsiders. Unlike, say, Ken Loach in his last film, the nauseatingly smug "Ae Fond Kiss," Mr. Akin doesn't presume to know how to tie up religious, cultural and sexual differences in a neat package.

Germany, it emerges, is no more hospitable to Cahit and Sibel than the couple's own family and background. It also isn't any better for non-Turkish Germans. That's tough on this unlikely pair, but it's not the end of them, either.

Despite the tears, the blood and the booze, "Head-On" is a hopeful film, if for no other reason than Cahit and Sibel can't be sized up or pinned down, their troubles filed under immigration and assimilation. Their tribulations are at once specific and universal, by turns grimly funny and darkly ironic. Set principally against the grubby environs of working-class Hamburg, in dives and derelict apartments, the film has a terrific sense of place. The city's grubbiness works a vivid contrast to the visions of Turkey that flicker throughout the film. Istanbul looks beautiful, but then so, too, does Cahit's wreck of an apartment, where anarchy and the freedom it promises linger as stubbornly as the smell of stale beer and cigarettes.

'Head-On'

Opens today in Manhattan.

Written (in German and Turkish, with English subtitles) and directed by Fatih Akin; director of photography, Rainer Klausmann; edited by Andrew Bird; artistic director, Andreas Thiel; produced by Ralph Schwingel, Stefan Schubert and Wüste Filmproduktion; released by Strand Releasing. At the Angelika Film Center, Mercer and Houston Streets, Greenwich Village. Running time: 118 minutes. This film is not rated.

WITH: Birol Unel (Cahit), Sibel Kekilli (Sibel), Catrin Striebeck (Maren) and Guven Kirac (Seref).


Posted at 07:19 am by R7fel
Make a comment  


Next Page




<< January 2005 >>
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
 01
02 03 04 05 06 07 08
09 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31




Click Here to sign the Darfur Petition!


-
R7fel1's Photos




-
papi and josh @ beach




-







If you want to be updated on this weblog Enter your email here:



rss feed