Post for April 22nd: Nuclear Agenda

Re: Iran Ayatollah Assails U.S. On New Nuclear Strategy.

I thought President Obama’s “Nuclear Posture Review” was not meant to be a threat to anyone but, as is more in our nature as a nation, a reassurance to those nations who do abide by the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty. For the Ayatollah to perceive this as a threat speaks loudly of a guilty conscience. Khamenei’s automatic assumption we are threatening Iran may warrant further investigation of Iran’s nuclear program. Though, meant or not, Obama’s “Nuclear Posture Review” is a roundabout threat to those countries who are in violation or were perched to do so. Iran has refused to stall its nuclear program, in spite of United Nations sanctions and fervent calls from the United States. I do not hold with the idea that we, the U.S. should police the world, but Nuclear power is something that can and will affect the whole world and it would be wrong for those with the power to stop it to stand idly by.

Post for April 9th: Israel's true face?

Re: Israel Lifts Order of Silence in Journalist’s Spying Case

In my opinion Israel is behaving suspiciously. Secretly holding a journalist under house arrest for nearly four months is not part of the program of an honest nation. The journalist is suspect of fraud and the theft with intent to harm Israel of some 2,000 military documents. It is thought that she used some of those papers to write her articles before being arrested. I understand not wanting sensitive information to be leaked to the public, or military intelligence leaked to anyone but the treatment of the journalist bring the whole operation as suspect. Gag orders, house arrest and potential jail sentences seem a bit extreme when it isn’t proved she stole or used the documents. It seems mostly to be a wrong place wrong time scenario. If Israel is seeking trust from the world and its allies it must begin to act in an upright manner, all these backhanded and under handed dealings are damaging to their image and to their state. What building can expect to stand on such shaky foundations?

Puppetmaster forever?

Is the United States the puppet master of the world?

It seems that way today. With every country following what seem to be simple suggestions that fit the agenda of the United States without actually having to come from them. A perfect example is in this article, “Western officials have long believed that North Waziristan is the single most important haven for militants…” is a subtle way of telling Pakistan that there is a threat on their own land and in order for Pakistan and the United States to become allies, they must first deal with this threat. Perhaps it is because the United States views the militants inhabiting this area as a threat to their power and standing with the rest of the world that they feel the need to create these radical viewpoints.

One thing that stands out to me is that many of the areas that the United States views as a threat to them or inhabited by militants tend to be in or around tribal areas. Tribal peoples are generally not a threat to anyone unless a wrong has been committed against their people. Often times the only fighting they do is to fight back. Perhaps it is the lack of development that allows the United States to view these people as a threat, but in all honesty, without development and expansion how are they even going to be able to fight back against the United States. Maybe if they got together with these militant groups, but then the United States would have to commit a crime against them.

Pulling the puppet strings, trying to make yourself and your country more powerful is not the correct way to command a country. Often time’s citizens of the United States say that President Bush was the man that “ruined” our image, but perhaps it is the lack of change that gives President Obama this honor. We should try to silence our government in matters that do not pertain to the safety of our citizens or soldiers. Often this is the area in which we get in trouble. International relations will never be continuous or civil if we do not make a point to stay out of other people’s business. This is why President Obama was elected. On a platform of change, and change he has not delivered.

Modesty

The members of the Duggar family, a rising American phenomenon, pride themselves on several things. Obviously, the number of children seems to be the most significant accomplishment of Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar’s life as a married couple. However, a further search into their lives reveals a closely knit Christian family whose main focus is to raise their children to love God. Their conservative ways and interesting take on raising a family has captured American attention. An interesting characteristic of their family captured my attention the other day as I flipped on TLC and witnessed Michelle’s ultrasound of the newest baby. The clan of twenty one individuals crowded into the doctor’s office to witness the miraculous event. But come time to reveal the bulging belly under Mrs. Duggar’s shirt, a large blanket was placed over her belly, the children were shooed away, and only the nurse and Mr. Duggar were allowed to remain in the room. Michelle’s later comment on her ultrasound was that her and her husband believe in modesty; modesty that many Americans see as strict and excessive. Nine of the nineteen children in the family are female, plus Michelle and the wife of the Duggar’s eldest son. These eleven women are always clothed in calf-length skirts and high-necked t-shirts, cautious of what parts of their body they reveal to those not closely related.

Modesty is a topic of debate among many societies, but especially in religion. Typically modesty refers to the actions or dress of women. Peoples’ ideas of what actions are appropriate to make known to the general public, other people, and even their own family varies significantly. I bring up the Duggar family to illustrate just one example of an American family’s moral stance on the issue. I, too, come from a family of mostly females, so modesty is a large topic of discussion in my household. My sisters, mom, and I are always cautious of the length of our shorts and the depth of necklines on our shirts. We aren’t nearly as strict as the Duggar family, but we don’t advertise our bodies or expose vast amounts of skin either. I believe modesty is relative. A person should wear what they are comfortable in. If that means nothing, there are nudist colonies for that.

Many women of the Muslim faith have a similar view on modesty as the Duggars, but instead of covering their legs in long denim skirts, they cover the majority of their bodies when in public. The hijab, literally meaning “curtain” or “cover” in Arabic, can either refer to the head covering many Muslim women wear or to the full body covering that a smaller number of Muslim women wear. There is a seemingly ridiculous debate around the subject of the hijab, stemming from many misinterpretations regarding the purpose of the coverings. Many ignorant of the true reason behind wearing the dressings believe that women are expected to cover themselves for the purpose of suppressing them, restricting their movement with heavy clothing and forcing them into submission. The real reason is actually quite different, as well as liberating for Muslim women.

I wouldn’t have spent the majority of this editorial thus far discussing modesty if there was no purpose for it. The Qur’an instructs both men and women of Islamic faith to dress modestly. Specifically regarding women, the Qur’an states, "And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; and that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what must ordinarily appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands..." (Qur'an 24:30-31)

A young Canadian Muslim, Sumayyah Hussein, interviewed several other Muslim girls, asking their opinions on the hijab. Sumayya Syed, aged 16, stated, “…the hijab is not a responsibility, it's a right given to me by my Creator who knows us best. It's a benefit to me, so why not? It's something every woman should strive to get and should want." "You feel modest...and you feel like you're covered up. You have more self-respect. You have more confidence in yourself that you don't need to care about (how) you look," said Rema Zawi, also 16 years old.

In Muslim society, wearing the hijab is seen as an action taken to uphold modesty. In a society where religion and tradition governs, it is natural that the expectation of modesty be supported and enforced by the law. If the women desire to wear the hijab because they want to maintain their modesty, why all the uproar about the hijab being a suppressant to the woman of Islam? The hijab is just another form of modesty, much the same as the Duggar girls wearing skirts and my family being conscientious of the amount of skin we show. If modesty is for the benefit of all, why restrict it?

Israel/Palestin

Op/Ed

The conflict of Israel and Palestine is something that is talked about so much that some might say it is, "beating a horse with a dead stick," and if there is so much talk, why is there so little action being done on the success of solution to the conflict. Israel and Palestine have had their "odds and ends" on and off throughout history, however things have been especially heated since World War Two. Basically, the Jewish people needed a place to go, since obviously their home was destroyed, and much the world had much sympathy for them. Israel was what came to be the solution to the problem; Israel was declared a state, and the Palestinian people, who were sharing and living in the land, were told all of a sudden where they could and couldn't live. Since it is said in the biblical times, that the land of Israel belongs to the Jews, many of the Jewsish population believe that they have the divine right to own and live in the land, however the big conflict arises because the Palestinians have been living in the land for just as long, if not longer, than the Jews. So who has the right to live in the land? Obviously both sides have a legitimate point and reason for being there, but who is right? This is the main reason for all the war and conflict between the two states today. There has been constant fighting since the two states were created, and such drastic measures, such as completely shutting off power, and even food and gas to the Palestinians, have happened because of the fighting. When I say that the topic has been beaten over and over again, it's because it is true; everybody on both sides and around the world wants the fighting to stop; what is gained from people dying, especially when it is happening on both sides? Of course what needs to happen is a solution, but when the brightest people in the nation can't even come up with a descent plan, you know that's saying something. My point here is that this conflict is one that has no quick solution. There has been so much damage to both sides since the two states have been created, that it will take much more than just talking to solve this issue. In my opinion, the greatest healing power to the situation will be time. If laws and peace treaties are put into action, things will change, but will this change the hearts of the single individuals who are more than happy and willing to die for their country and its rights? My simple answer is no. This is happening right now in Iraq; America is trying to fix the mess that they've started, and it is not the people of the country as a whole that are causing the problem, it is those that are the fundamental Muslims who want to kill in Allah's name. These people are a small population of Muslims, however the biggest problem that is faced, is the fact that they believe that what they are doing is right and honoring to their religion and faith; we are the bad guys to them, and mainly because we do not have the same beliefs. This same analogy can be applied to the Israeli Palestinian conflict; there is virtually no way, at least not even a moderately easy way, to change the views of someone who is very passionate in what they believe. This conflict is going to take time: time to forget the pain that everyone is experiencing from the events, time to be able to trust one another, time to establish governments that respect each other, and even time to break down the physical wall that separates the two. Every single one of the solutions I present take a great deal of time and effort. There is no doubt that the people want peace; everyone, or most everyone, wants peace, even if they are the ones fighting. If the question: would you rather be fighting in war, or be spending time with friends and family in a safe environment? was asked to a wide range of people, I can safely say that over ninety percent would choose the friends and family. We know what both sides in the conflict want and that is to be able to live in peace, but it will take understanding and cooperation for this to happen. When one's mind is scarred from the effects of war, this lasts a lifetime and is not forgotten easily, if ever. This conflict can only be helped by time to realize what is best, and time to get past the past, which can and certainly will be the hardest thing to do.

Revamping the Soliya Connect Program to foster better relations

The Soliya Connect program encourages communication across the globe, but is it doing enough? Their main objective is to facilitate conversations between a diverse body of students through video conferencing. A good goal and a fairly affective process, however, to truly make the desired impact the scale is too small and the time spent, far too short.

Students from the west and east are all schedule to meet at a certain time online to talk about international issues, and to develop a dialog. The time these students commit to the Connect program is two hours once a week. At the end of the week I know I struggled to even remember what we talked about. The program is useful for aiding in giving a face to that “other” side and allowing free discussion of almost any topic. Though, it is not enough. Two hours once a week is forgettable. There are three main problems with the Soliya Connect program. First: the sessions are too short. Second: the overall scale of the program is too small for the desired change and third: the sessions are too crowded to fully explore the opinions of the other participants.

I would recommend, having gone through the Soliya Connect program that the program extend itself to two hours three times a week. This would allow the students involved to avidly participate in the group and with more time the prompts could be discussed more in-depth and in greater length. With the added sessions more could be explored by the groups and a much deeper impression of the experience would be carried away with each student.

The idea behind the Soliya Connect program is to foster a greater understanding between the west and the Middle East. By conversing with people from all over the world one’s thought process’ have to change as the mind is confronted with new data which nullifies the old. The program helps rid the participants of some of the unfounded stereotypes that all parties may hold of the other. In the long run this is extremely helpful to the progress of the relationship between the West and the Middle East, indeed the Middle East and the world. As a multitude of individuals with first hand positive experiences go out and are able to put an end to media fostered untruths. That is change, but it is too slow and too small. The program is more a trickle of sand patiently wearing away a great boulder. To see the change Soliya desires the program must grow and involve a greater number of people. To do this without increasing the third problem with the Connect program, there would simply have to be more sessions held with more facilitators.

Each session typically has ten people actively involved; eight students and two facilitators. The diversity is astounding and allows for the ability to sit back and just listen to what other people are saying. While that is enjoyable, when the issue is a hot one and everyone wishes to contribute to the discussion, there are too many people to be fully heard. The groups need to be more around the number of four or five with two facilitators.

The changes I propose might be a tad intensive for Soliya’s current scale but it could be something they could work up to. I recommend the program I laid out above be used with the students who really show a great interest in the discussions as a more advance version of the Soliya program. This would build a greater interest in the program and aid in the change between U.S. and Middle Eastern relations. Once Soliya gains more momentum they should make this intensive program the standard and elaborate off of it for those seeking further interactions. After that, they should again break and create more sessions of equal intensity to truly make that impact in the experiences of all these curious individuals.

The Soliya program was captivating and stimulating but overtime that wonderment experienced with honestly listening to another’s opinion fades away. The experience is too impermanent. However with more sessions, two hours three times a week, a greater sphere of influence to increase the rate of impact, and fewer students per sessions to allow deeper discussion that joy might linger longer and allow itself to shared and savored.

Should I Stay or Should I Go?

When President Bush declared war on Iraq in 2003 few people would have predicted the mess that this action would cause in the future. Today, seven years later, we have begun to see the consequences of his actions. Because of Bush’s decision in 2003 President Obama is facing one of the most crucial decisions of his presidency. On becoming president Obama vowed to have American troops out of Iraq by August of this year. However things have changed since that promise was made and this action is no longer in the best interest of the Iraqi people. When the promise was originally made it was assumed that Iraq would have a stable democratically elected government by now and, as has been shown by other articles in the New York Times, stability is not going to happen any time soon. Yet, the President is planning to stick to his original deadline of August. However, without the American forces there to support the fledgling government in Iraq that the U.S. has tried so hard to create, this government will most likely collapse.

The only government that works is one that has been given legitimacy by the people. Iraq’s government is not recognized by a majority of its people and it continues to lose respect with its many recounts and talks of tampering. During the first election in 2005 only a small amount of Iraqis even voted, how can a government be expected to survive without the support of the people that it is governing? Also, as shown in another New York Times article, violence is still common all around Iraq. The article, published a week ago, spoke specifically about bombings in Iraq that only generated more distrust in the government and showcased the continued actions of Al Qaeda. All of these facts point to an unstable government that has only survived because of American presence. If America was to pull out right now the government would most likely fall, especially because Al Qaeda is always lurking on the fringes, waiting for any opportunity to regain power in Iraq.

However, although the government continues to be unstable, the Iraqi forces have continued to progress and grow into a formidable force. A statement given by a deputy national security advisor stated that recent Iraqi-lead missions show that the Iraqi troops are showing progress and the ability to provide their own security. However, no army, no matter how well trained, is effective without strong leadership. The government that is currently in place right now is nowhere near stable enough to provide the type of leadership needed to effectively use this strong new army. For a long time American forces have been the support for the Iraqi government and the leadership for the Iraqi army, if they were to pull out now the results could be disastrous.

However, while staying in Iraq forever is not the solution to this problem, neither is pulling troops out right now. If the president was willing to enact a more gradual pull out rather than the immediate pull out that he is planning now that would allow more time for the government to gain stability and legitimacy from the people and also the skills to use their army effectively to keep Al Qaeda at bay. The Iraqi people want peace and stability, however they do not feel that the government is providing them the security that they need amidst all of the violence still going on in Iraq. If a gradual pull out were to take place the Iraqi politicians could use the holes left by the American troops to prove to the people that they would do whatever it takes to keep them safe. Also this would give the Iraqi leaders more experience with the troops and they would learn how to utilize them to the Iraqis advantage. Yet, while the Iraqi government would be given these opportunities to prove itself, American troops would be standing by in case of more violence, to continue training the army and to help the Iraqi government become the strong force that it needs to become.

No God but God?

Islam is the faith of murderers and the vile! This statement is claimed among many nations and has been for many years. I would venture to say that the Islamic community is exactly the same as ours, except for one big difference. They are still people, living breathing and walking. They still go to school and work, trying to raise a family. They communicate with others and build relationships just like anyone else. The only big difference I see between an Islamic man and a Christian man is the God that he believes in.

The prophet Muhammad was believed to have a personal encounter with God as a 40 year-old sometime around 610. He had ventured into a cave and so happened to meet with the spirit of Allah, which nearly crushed him in order to get the point across, telling him to preach that there is only one God and that we should surrender to him. Muhammad, following his new orders as the prophet of God, began to preach this message, thus creating Islam in its truest form. Since then, the religion has exploded into many different sects including the Sunni, Sufi and Shi’a tribes.

Christianity has many different sects of its faith as well; Catholic, Lutheran, Protestant and non-denominational are just a few. All believe one truth: Jesus Christ is the Son of God, He died for our sins, rose again, and reigns. Jesus was born to a virgin mother in Bethlehem and when He was about thirty years old He began His ministry to all people, performing miracles and teaching.

Both of these men are seen as prophets by many groups. A Christian would say that Muhammad was simply a man, and a Muslim would say that Jesus was a prophet, but no son of God. However, the question still remains: Is the God they were referring to the same God, and was this God teaching the same thing? A practicing Muslim would say yes, because there is only one God, and a Christian would say absolutely not!

The Quran is quoted as saying, “…but righteous is he who believeth in Allah and the Last Day and the angels and the Scripture and the prophets; and giveth his wealth, for the love of Him, to kinsfolk and to orphans and the needy…” (2:177) Inferring from this passage, a righteous man or a “good” man is one who believes in Allah, the end times, angels of Allah, the Quran and the prophets. A good person is also one who cares for orphans and the poor. This teaching is not too far from the Christian book, the Bible. In the Bible, Jesus is quoted as saying “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” (Matthew 22:37 NIV) It also says “I have shown you in every way…that you must support the weak. And remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’” (Acts 20:35 NKJV) Jesus here is saying that we should love God with all of ourselves, and that we should take care of the poor, needy and the weak.

These two teachings, while from a different script, seem to have the same meaning. Yet as I researched further, I found another main focus of the Islamic tradition. “When he reaches maturity, and reaches the age of forty, he should say, ‘My Lord, direct me to appreciate the blessings You have bestowed upon me … and to do the righteous works that please You…I am a submitter.’ It is from these that we accept the righteous works, and overlook their sins. They have deserved Paradise.” (46:15-16) This tradition focuses on good deeds. It seems here that an Islamic man would not receive paradise unless he lives up to the standards of good living. If this man decided to dishonor his parents, he would receive his due reward (46:19), and not receive paradise.

Many would say that Christianity holds this same doctrine, but I venture to say that it does not. Ephesians 2:8-9 says “For by grace you have been saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves. It is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.” (NKJV) Titus 3:5 also says “not by works of righteousness which you have done, but according to His mercy He saved us…” The Christian doctrine clearly states that good deeds will not determine a man’s heaven or hell, but his faith in Jesus Christ alone determines his fate.

This may be one of many differences between Islam and Christianity, but it is a solid divider of the two worlds. Islam is a religion based on works, and Christianity is one based on Faith. The two will never be the same. It is now up to us, the readers and believers, to choose which one is right: works, or faith.

Burqa Ban?

I’m sure at some point in all our lives, we have all had that terrible dream: you go to class/work/a party only to realize you’ve arrived completely naked. Needless to say, we are all thankful when the alarm goes off and we wake up in bed. However, this nightmare is quickly becoming a reality for women across France. Over the past several weeks, The New York Times has published several articles discussing the proposed French bill which would bar the burqa (a full body covering sometimes worn by Islamic women) throughout public places in France. It is time French citizens to step up and put a stop to this law.
French Preside Nicolas Sarkozy claims the complete burqa ban is important because the ban protects French values and would grant Islamic women more individual freedom. I am not denying that in some instances, the burqa can become oppressive, but certainly not in all cases. To some Muslims, the burqa or hijab is a sign of modesty. In these cases forcing Muslim women to go to public places without the hijab is the equivalent of requiring them to go naked.
In the high school I attended, we were required to wear uniforms everyday. Despite students’ endless complaining, the administration had one response the generally shut us up. A uniform means that all students look the same. Nobody can judge you based on what you are wearing; rather, your actions and words will speak for you. Let yourself be judged by whom you are not what you wear or what you look like. This statement is also true for Islamic women wearing any form of covering. Rather than oppressing these women, in free nations like France, the hijab can be an equalizing force. These women must now be judged for their skill and personality instead of how they look.
Since the French revolution, the motto of France has been “liberty, equality, and brotherhood” (in French of course). Liberty and equality? It is time for France to take a serious look in the mirror. This new law reeks of inequality and suppression. Furthermore, in the French constitution, Article 2 reads that France, “shall ensure the equality of all citizens before the law. . .It shall respect all beliefs.” Banning a religious practice that is not harmful to the state of public well being does not provide equality or show respect to all beliefs. Further, this constitutional provision is extends to “all beliefs”, not just to traditional Western Judeo-Christian beliefs. As such, the practice of Islam is constitutionally protected in France.
Despite President Sarkozy’s efforts to ban the burqa, there are some signs of hope for Islamic women. The Supreme Court of France has warned President Sarkozy that if the burqa bill is enacted, the Court will likely rule it unconstitutional. Further, Arab nations are rallying with their fellow French Muslims in decrying this bill. Despite the growing opposition to the bill, not every country is threatened. According to recent New York Times articles, Belgium and Quebec are both considering enacting similar laws.
As the French government continues to push this law I challenge the French leadership and citizens to look closely at the individual rights at risk. The bill denies Muslim women freedom of expression and freedom to conform to the tenets of their chosen religion. President Sarkozy decries the burqa as oppressive to women and suppressing their rights. My question, Mr. Sarkozy, is: are you truly liberating these women or are you merely oppressing them in a different fashion?

A Throwback to the Iranian Revolution: A look at the Green Revolution of 2009

“The enemies must know that the [Green movement] protests, which are a caricature of the pre-revolutionary ones, cannot undermine the system.”
- Ali Khamenei, August 2009

Despite the recent criticisms by both the United States media and the United States government regarding the country of Iran’s nuclear and political policies, there is a great amount of change that is occurring in Iran, particularly in the youth population: a movement from the hardcore fundamentalism of the Iranian Revolution to an ideal of a more moderate and modern political affiliation

On June 12th, 2009, the tenth presidential election was held for the new leader of Iran, between incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (a conservative and controversial figure) and three other challengers (Mir-Houssein Mousavi, Mohsen Rezaee, and Mehdi Karroubi). Despite a good deal of speculation by outside sources that Mousavi would gain the popular vote, votes came in with a two-thirds majority that Ahmadinejad had won the election. Almost immediately, however, the three oppositional candidates immediately rejected the official results, indicating that the polls had been manipulated, as Ahmadinejad was not believed to have won. The Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khameini, immediately stood up and took Ahmadinejad’s side in what should have been an act of decision by the Islamic republic’s clergy, but a revolution immediately began against the decision by a surprising amount of youth individuals in a movement that is now referred to as “The Green Movement.”

The effect of this movement was an immediate clamp-down by the Iranian government on the opposition, in a movement that echoes back to the Iranian Revolution in 1979. The government began locking down the internet and cell phones that were being utilized in Iran, stopped electricity and food, and began violently silencing protesters who would gather against the election results. What is important to understand about this revolution, however, is that a majority of the people who were protesting were younger students protesting against the aggressive regime. However, it is not so much the movement itself to me that is as important as the method and group that began the movement.

The revolution was also known as the “Twitter Revolution,” because of the excessive amount of young Iranian revolutionaries who utilized online social sites such as Twitter and Facebook in order to organize, and thus the groups that were mostly involved were young college students. Modern politics frequently emphasizes the fundamentalist viewpoint in the Muslim world, but before this revolution, few media outlets really looked at the Iranian people as moderate in viewpoint. Despite the many lives that have lost after the June elections, this revolution provided more of an understanding of the less extremist views of Iran. Iranians aren’t just nuclear-power hungry extremists hoping to kill everyone in the United States. Iranians are people, just like us in the United States, and the media could do well to help the populace of the United States understand this.

Survival of the Fattest

In a time of digital advancements and unprecedented prosperity, many of the world’s nations have fallen victim to the not-so-nice side effects of modernity. With all the gadgets and gizmos of the 21^st century, people of all walks of life are becoming more and more stagnant and lazy. This has lead to an increase in obesity in many countries and has expedited the associated demand for medical attention.

One contribution is the automobile industry. Thousands of automobiles are produced everyday in the United States, Germany, Italy, and Japan, which provide ease and accessibility for many people. This differs from a time when more people walked everywhere and when being active out of doors was much more commonplace. Do not get me wrong, cars have proven their worth, but they also come with a price on health. Instead of standing and exercising, cars allow people to sit whilst they travel. Also, the emissions from cars have caused major respiratory problems in highly populated areas and have been associated with the global warming crisis.

Another aspect is the rise of the fast food industry outside of the U.S., from whence it originated. Fast food chains such as McDonalds and Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) have emerged in placed like Japan and the Middle East. The average number of calories in a hamburger is 550, which for an average 150 pound person is one third of their basal metabolism. One third! That is a huge number of calories to consume at one time. Add to that fries and a soft drink and a person could have well over half of their daily calories in less than an hour. This in combination with the stagnant lifestyles many people lead results in weight gain and health concerns.

It is not too surprising that the United States is the largest country in the world. People size that is. It is estimated that 30 percent of the American population is obese and two thirds are considered overweight. This is due to the extravagant proportions in our meals and sedentary lifestyles. Although we lead the world in this pandemic, many other countries are beginning to show more signs that they are not as slim as they once were.

Countries in the Middle East, such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar have climbed the ranks of obese states, the cause of which has been pointed to rising socio-economic standings and traditions. Qatar is ranked sixth in the world for prevalent obesity. It has the highest ranking of obesity in boys in the Middle East and Maghreb. Saudi Arabia is ranked in the top twenty states.

One such tradition is that food brings people together. Families often eat together and eat often. Friends will offer food to those who come to their house and it is considered impolite to refuse any of it. This presents a Catch-22 for many people; they want to polite and thus eat, but then are very full and cannot eat anymore. This dilemma opens the door for obesity, which has begun to take a stronger hold in the state. However, this tradition is a direct counter against the effects of globalization because the Qatari wish to maintain their cultural identity and continue living as they have done for many centuries.

And yet, the effects of globalization slowly seep into the country. With all its wealth from the oil industry, states like Qatar and Saudi Arabia have been able to rise in socio-economic strength in a relatively short amount of time. Hence, many of the urban areas have begun to open fast food chains like McDonalds and KFCs. Combined with the existing mentality of constant eating, the number of calories a person would take in by eating at the fast food locations would be enormous. Ironically, so will their bodies.

Another factor in the obesity concerns is the climate of the Middle East. In the summer months it can reach a humid 110 degrees. This has pushed many Saudis and Qataris to resort to automobiles for travel. With the wealth many people have and the accessibility to the car industry, more people own cars and use them for recreation and personal transportation.

The last tradition that has caused concern is families marrying cousins together. This practice has long been known to increase the probability of genetic disorders and mental disabilities. But, clinging to cultural identity, many families do not want to see things change and wish to keep their family lines close. Therefore, when all of the factors are added up (heavy habitual eating, marital traditions, unhealthy food choices, and lazy modes of transportation) the resulting obesity is not quite very inconspicuous. And it has not gone unnoticed by many medical professionals, who are working to change some of people’s traditional habits.

Medical professionals are now working on programs that will shift the focus from treating obesity to preventative measures. Many Middle Eastern students have come to the U.S to receive training in working with new preventative programs and to learn how to handle the disabilities factor that goes along with obesity. Sadly, they represent a minority of the people in the Middle Eastern countries who wish to see their people return to healthy Body Mass Indexes (BMI) and learn how to balance the new ideas of the advanced technological world with the established traditions of their cultural identity. Only time will tell if these progressive ideas come to fruition in both the Middle East and elsewhere affected by this pandemic.

Kellye Tamura

30 April 2010

In response to "Wealth and Tradition Pull Qatar Towards Unhealthy Choices" (27 April 2010)

Greeley, Colo.

Different day, Same story

Re: Israeli Rightists Stir Tensions in East Jerusalem

(April 25, 2010)

Is it really a surprise to anyone that an Israeli action caused tensions in Jerusalem? Did anyone really not think there was a conflict going on between the Israelis and Palestinians? Granted, East Jerusalem is part of a very holy city held high in esteem by both the Jewish and Muslim people but we know already. This article does have some merit. Israeli government officials express awareness that “Americans think they have a puppet in the Israeli prime-minister’s office… We are not puppets. Jerusalem is ours”. The government officials are not willing to allow American political and military forces to take over their decision-making process, which will indicate resistance to the “American-brokered negotiations”. Such American-run peace negotiation is the tried and failed approach. Take for example, the Annapolis process. This was a solution laid out by the United States at a conference in Annapolis for a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This global hot spot is still an area of violence and conflict. Any time a country is forced into a resolution by another force, it doesn’t work out. Especially in this instance is an American-mandated truce impossible. It is well known that America is an ally of Israel so why should Palestine go to a meeting with the biased parent and angry sibling? Palestine knows what the result of this would be.

Dad-America has already chosen its side, and American citizens remain in the dark about what has actually gone underway. Any information we receive about a potential peace talk is put in such ambiguous terms that give a false sense of pending change, and real results. Even to the media sources “officials revealed few details” and little to offer in terms of actual accomplishment other than “the feeling is that we are back on track”. Back on track according to who? In February Israel announced the building of new apartments in the Jewish East-Jerusalem. I would be willing to bet money with more confidence than I would put in the stock market, that Palestine wouldn’t consider this action back on track.

Even though America is clearly standing behind Israel, this kind of a gross overstatement of one group of people’s pain is not acceptable. The peace talks are not back on track, Israel and Palestine are not willing to do this on their own, and it’s about time that the American media stops trying to lead us to think otherwise. The conflict is defined by many long years of conflict and history beginning with the Jewish populations forced evacuation of the area that came to be known as Pakistan. The solution to this conflict (if there can be a solution other than time) cannot under any circumstances be American forced, unless we intend to keep American military forces in control of this area until the end of time. It may just be my opinion, but this sound too close to a military occupation against the will of the people. Saddam Hussein anyone? Ideally, peace to the Israeli and Palestinian people would come naturally, but since it hasn’t, it can’t be the doing of the biased parent, America, to force a peace deal between the two that it isn’t willing to monitor with extensive military personnel.

The times they aren't a-changin'

In Germany millions watched as a new wall was erected separating East and West Germany. After World War II Germany was divided into different states ruled by world powers to control conflict and to stop the unity of a German world power. The wall lasted from 1961 until 1989 and threw the country into a time period of personal, economic, and developmental struggles. When the people made the decision to tear the wall down its impact reverberated around the world. Here was a people done with the separation, and a concrete wall that was making the distinction between two groups of people who at the base of everything were human. This decision was not made by outside powers forcing them to tear it down, it was made of their own volition.
The Palestinian and Israeli conflict is on many people's minds as the world watches Israel building a wall for protection, closing off the Palestinian neighborhoods. While this concrete wall is a new construction of the 20th century, the historical significance of a wall and its mistaken protection is a story echoed over centuries of pain. When cultures define themselves as something different from each other they can co-mingle or they will feel the need to separate. And during the colonial era we see many lines being drawn through countries, tribes, and families that do not make sense except for the outside viewer. The drawing lines of Africa speak well on this topic as many tribes were displaced with the creation of countries within the continent by British, French and Belgian decisions. No African committee was heard, and colonists did not due research into the area. It was more the significance of quantity of land and the creation of port cities than the displacement of human beings that was on the mind of colonial powers.
The Israeli wall is similar to the wall of Berlin because in essence people are people and a wall cannot bring you protection. As discussed in Mind 182 we argued the point that how bad could the fighting truly get without the wall. Supporters of the wall argue that it does provide a sense of protection from the violence created by the Palestinians. But a wall serves as a threat for the other side, and cuts them off from advantages such as jobs, healthcare, and supplies necessary to live. The question is, how is this not a repeat of history, and will it not solve itself? Who should be the provoker in this conflict? Who should take the higher ground and fight peacefully? Conflicts can never be solved with violence and this is no exception. Only when both sides are willing to listen and not be the blind leading the blind will any issue be resolved. It is not a simple task, in fact it is rather daunting. But it is not an outside aggressor that is going to bring change and a solution, but rather a force inside that must stand up and take action. In South Africa it was Nelson Mandela, in India it was Gandhi and in America it was Martin Luther King Jr. We have these figureheads that youth and generations afterwards can look up to and this needs to occur in this new conflict.
With this conflict comes pain on both sides, and an instability to economy, social structure, and general lifestyle. Even though destroying the wall is not the only solution it is one that may help heal wounds faster. After a while people will come out of the shadows of oppression and fight for their people to have a voice in their community. A solution will come, the problem and question is how. This event was created by people and must be ended by the people in that area. Because in the end no matter how hard other world powers push, it is in the people's hands to do the right thing in action.

Nausea at Torture

Re: Report Details Torture at Secret Baghdad Prison
Author: Sam Dagher

To the Editor:

“America is the symbol of democracy, but then you have the abuses at Abu Ghraib,” Mr. Maliki said. “The American government took tough measures, and we are doing the same, so where is the problem and why this raucousness?”

While I read this article, besides fighting back vomit I was pondering why someone would do anything like this. I cannot understand how a human being could torture another human being and sleep that same night. The horrors told of in this article make me sick to my stomach, so much so that recollecting them is painful. However, when I look at the above quote from the article, questions arise in my head. America truly is the symbol of democracy, but then why are we performing these acts? Maliki's claim, while broad, is truthful. America did abuse its detainees at Abu Ghraib, and maybe this spawned the idea for such treatment in the Baghdad prison. If America truly is the symbol of democracy, we need to get our act together and shape up, so that we are not encouraging this kind of horrendous, pointless torture.

Recount Chaos

Re: Iraq: Recount to Take Weeks
Author: Tim Arango

To the Editor:

I think it is so awesome to see the people of Iraq having a voting right. This new sense of chaos is no better than before, but it comes with the freedom of the vote. It is so encouraging to see this country and these people able to express themselves in the way they want! Although I am not encouraged that suicide bombings are taking place, I am reminded that things always get worse before they get better. These men and women are having a voice for the first time and it is a chaotic time, so the violence is understandable to an extent. I am eager to see how things will change once the votes are recounted.

How are Muslims and Americans similar? They're People

I watch the news and hear the American side of the stories, both of which portray Muslims as a collective. However, Muslims are people. In a recent presentation in the University of Northern Colorado’s Mind 182 class, one Saudi student spoke of a story where his older brother found out that he had been ditching school to play soccer. This is a classic example of a personality trait. The student loved soccer and did not think of school as important. It is hard to forget how many American college students have experienced the same desire to ditch school when, as the semester progresses, it gets easier to find a parking spot on campus and attending classmates become fewer. Another presentation led a female Saudi student to say that her dream was to make education for students with special needs better in her country. There are a volume of people who want to make education better for students in the United States. A recent delegate assembly of the Colorado Education Association is such an example. I tell you, Americans, Muslims are not much unlike from us. The difference is that they live in a dissimilar environment. Their surroundings are more regulated, something that has led to few women having political rights. However, what is often missed in the news is the fact that there are a few women that are speaking in Arab and Middle Eastern politics. One such example is the fact that Kuwaiti government has Dr. Modi Abdul Aziz Hamoud, the Minister of Education and the Minister of Higher Education. Looking at her image above, she is pictured just like US Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Neither woman is wearing a hijab. They are both wearing professional clothing that is fitting for government positions. Ultimately, both look very similar but are in parts of the world where ideologies are opposite when it comes to women. However, they are not much different as they are both serving their governments.
This evening I watched one of my economics classmates smoking a cigarette. I yelled his name out the window and he smiled. I said good luck on the final and he understood what I was saying. The first time I met him, I was open to meeting him, but ultimately had my concerns and skepticisms. He was friendly to me and it changed what I thought of him. I remember asking what language he spoke. He said he spoke both Arabic and French. I never imagined that an Arab would speak French. He was communicating to me in English. The first time I met my coworker at the ticket office it was similar. I found out that he spoke English and French. However, I had no skepticism or concerns about him. The only difference between my coworker and classmate is that my classmate looked and sounded like he was from the Middle East. My classmate still has emotions, like smiling and feeling good that I remembered his name, just as my coworker has emotions when it comes to areas of his life. They are both students at the University of the Northern Colorado and in the eyes of the student body they are equally important.
The purpose of knowing whether someone is similar is that it gives us the ability to connect. It is like the new Pepsi commercial at the movie theater, and below, that is designed to make the world a better place. After everyone has shuffled around the cards that say what is important to them, the person at the top of the screen pours a Pepsi. The Pepsi is a symbol of connection because everyone can see the Pepsi that is being poured. They are a connection and just like Pepsi is trying to make the world better, we have to make the world better. The Mind 182 class referenced above is an example of positive diplomacy. As students, we are asked to sit down with each other and with students through the Soliya Connect Program. Within class and through Soliya we are interacting with students from the Middle East. We ask questions, they ask questions, and we all start to formulate researched ideas about each other through discussion. When I asked the Saudi woman who came into our class if women were killed for being out in public without men, she was surprised. She was clear to say that what the media portrays as Saudi Arabia is not real. I have also had the ability to support this with fact, such as hearing from other Soliya students that are not from Saudi Arabia who have similar experiences with the people that are in Saudi Arabia. I am able to see that there are women in the Kuwaiti government. Ultimately, what I am learning is that there is more truth to what people of the countries in the Middle East say about their country than what the people in our country say about their country. This is the same as if they were talking about my country. It is better to ask the person who lives and breathes from the culture than the person that truly has had no experience.

">

Pressure Pushing Down on Me

RE: Companies Feeling More Pressure to Cut Iran Ties (April 23, 2010)

By Peter Baker

To the Editor:

I found this article really interesting because it showed how America seems to feel the need to step up when the UN fails. I think that this pressure to end ties with Iran will have a great impact on this country. However, whether the impact will be good or bad remains to be seen. Also the effectiveness of this strategy has yet to be determined. On one hand Iran could fold and give up its nuclear aspirations. However on the other hand, not every company in the world is going to cut ties to Iran and therefore Iran will most likely always have the funding that it needs, this could mean that this pressure would have no effect at all. One other outcome however, is that Iran could retaliate against the US violently and cause another war. I think the main question now is: is this sanction worth the risk and will it have the outcome that President Obama is looking for. Also what effect will this sanction, and Iran’s reaction to it have worldwide?

How Could We?

RE: Report Details Torture at Secret Baghdad Prison (April 27, 2010)

By Sam Dagher

To the Editor:

“America is the symbol of democracy, but then you have the abuses at Abu Ghraib,” Mr. Maliki said. “The American government took tough measures, and we are doing the same, so where is the problem and why this raucousness?” Although this entire article was very disturbing this is the part that really shocked me. The acts committed at this prison were atrocious and inhuman, how can we wonder why people from all over the world hate us when we know that they have stories like this to go off of. Not only did we show them that this sort of violence is ok but we gave them a rock solid excuse for committing violence in the future. If America is a democracy and we are a democracy then we can do these horrible things in the name of democracy. I feel like this will have a huge impact over the way that America is viewed by the world. How can we hope to create a peaceful world when all we contribute is violence that breeds hatred?

Instability = a Breeding Ground for Violence

RE: Wave of Fatal Bombins Widens Fissures in Iraq (April 23, 2010)

By Steven Lee Myers

To the Editor:

This article shows how an unstable country is a violent one. I think Americans need to ask our government if we are contributing or causing much of this violence. The article talked about how these bombings were adding to the instability of the government, bombings which were a response to American presence in Iraq and are helping to destabilize the government that Americans are trying to create. Is this the right course of action for the Iraqi people? Or just for America? One man who had been injured by the bombing summed up the people’s feelings nicely, “The politicians are busy forming the government and forgot all about us,” he said. “They are all useless.” It seems like America is only adding to chaos and violence within Iraq, even though that is exactly what we are trying to prevent. I think that stability needs to come from the people for it to have any hope for permanence, yet what are we doing to help that?

Guilty Until Proven Innocent

RE: Jury to Be Anonymous in Trial of Ex-Student Accused of Aiding Al Qaeda (April 26, 2010)

By Benjamin Weiser

To the Editor:

If there is anything that I have learned, it is that history repeats itself. This trial and the wording within the article closely resemble the mood in America during the 1920’s towards immigrants. First of all I think that the jurors have every right to remain anonymous because it would keep their judgment honest because they wouldn’t be afraid that what they had to say would cause them any harm. However I think this whole trial needs to be examined. In the past the fear of immigrants has caused some of the most heinous miscarriages of justice in American History, for example the case of Sacco and Vanzetti; two Italian immigrants who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and paid dearly for that mistake because of fabricated evidence. I’m not saying that Hasmi is either innocent or Guilty, merely that this bias needs to be taken into account and should be eliminated from the article.

There are 2 Sides to Every Story

RE: 2 Officials and 2 Views on Discussing Mideast Peace (April 28, 2010)

By Mark Landler

To the Editor:

When I began reading this piece I was expecting to read something presenting two sides of a particular story, for example the views of an Iraqi and the views of an American on peace in Iraq. However what I found was much different. This whole article was only one side of the Palestinian Israeli story. It made it seem like the Palestinians weren’t even part of the peace negotiations. Only the American view and the Israeli view were presented and so this article was not a fair representation of the situation at all. The article made it seem like the biggest problem for peace in Israel right now is the continued construction in Jerusalem and an Israeli mayor. Not once did the article try to explain why the construction was a problem for peace and to add further insult there was only a brief portion that had anything to do with Palestine at all. This article was horribly biased incredibly uninformative with regard to what the issue really is about and the people who are really affected by the decisions made by these politicians.

Post for March 29th: Not a Surprise

Re: Religious Parties Now Key to Iraq Rule by: Margaret Coker

Though the people are more interested in basic social services the government is still largely swayed by the religious alliances of its members. The government structure is still he who as the right connections has the power, or so to speak. I did not feel this was a particularly earth shattering article, it makes a good deal of sense that Iraq’s government is subject to the suasion of religious parties when religion is such a heated issue throughout that area. While many of the religious factions are saying they will not lend support to the current Prime Minster Nouri al-Maliki and are leaning more toward Mr. Allawi’s campaign. While the people don’t want to focus on issues centered on religion the bloc is encouraging only those candidates who are against secularization. Personally, I think it is possible to have too much religion and a break from such a heady drink maybe so be suggested to those in power in the Middle East.

Obama is not stupid...

As Iraq Remains Messier Than Expected, Obama Sticks to a Deadline
By Peter Baker and Rod Nordland. April 28, 2010

Many are getting fed up with President Obama because he is sticking to a deadline, which is not getting American soldiers out of the Middle East as fast as they would like. When Obama ran for president, much support was gained because of his want to pull out our troops, but people believe that he is not sticking to his word. I think that Mr. Obama is doing the right thing, because we cannot leave a country to function on its own without a working government in tact. Also, there is not stable security, and many people are not able to walk around as freely because it is not safe. Iraq is now a better, but worse place than it was was when Saddam Houssein was in power; there is unfortunately no stability in the country, and this is something that will get better over time, and the United States has to make sure that the country is heading on the right path before we leave the people to govern the new democracy.

Violence vs. Violence

A Holiday of Contradictions in Afghanistan
By Alissa J. Rubin

To the Editor,

I find it extremely sad and disheartening that the situation in other parts of the world is so desperate that on a national holiday, a day when many in other countries would dedicate time to remembering what happened on that day or celebrating with family and friends, that Afghanistan citizens turn to violence. I think the greatest tragedy surrounding this holiday is that reclaiming the country from the hands of a communist leader became a violent act of men fighting to take control, killing tens of thousands in the process. It is so astounding to observe what lengths people are going to in order to fight for what they believe to be right. In this case, though, it sounds more like a struggle for power and leadership. I find it odd to think of this day as a holiday. While one good thing came from Mohammad Najibullah's removal from the position, it seems as if many more terrible things have spawned because of it.

To stay or to move on?

Obama Sticks to a Deadline in Iraq
By Peter Baker

To the Editor,

The issue of when to leave the Middle East has been a topic of discussion for a long time. Many were opposed before the troops even left in the first place. I find it interesting, now that Obama is keeping his promise of removing American troops by August, that there is such debate over whether or not it is the right time for such an action. This is not to say that the concern is unfounded. I agree that it is important for the removal of military forces to be strategic and done at a time that will not invalidate our efforts or cause a reverse effect. But the overwhelming pessimism toward removal portrayed in this article was surprising. “I’m for a shift away from the current rigid deadline to something more flexible, more reflective of the fluid and tense situation in Iraq, where the last thing the Iraqis really need is for the United States to be focused more on exit than anything else at a moment of high political uncertainty,” says Meghan L. O'Sullivan, a former deputy national security adviser to President Bush. It seems that the greatest concern is that IRaq will not be able to stand on its own feet when American forces leave. I feel that we are underestimating the people of Iraq in thinking that they won't be able to support their own government once our military leaves. Have we really listened to what they want? Do they want us to stay? Or are we choosing not to act out of fear? I think that Obama should keep his promise. It would show the American people and the world that he can stay true to his word. It will also show that we have trust in the people of Iraq, and confidence that they can maintain their own government.

Does Israel Want Peace?

World Briefing: Israel: Abbas Signals Readiness for Indirect Peace Talks (AP)

Palestine's president, Mahmoud Abbas, has finally publicly announced his eagerness to start negotiating peace with Israel. However, what does Israel do in the midst of all this? They go and build more housing developments in East Jerusalem. One of the main issues in the conflict is the city of Jerusalem; Palestinians want it as their capital, but things are not settled and Israel is continuing to break international law and build on the land anyway. This makes me wonder if Israel even wants peace, because they obviously know that the housing situation is making matters more and more tense with each new building built. I do not believe that Israel has the right to be building on this land before things have been settled. Palestine clearly seems to be ready to work things out, but I think the actions of Israel are speaking louder than its words.

To petition the government for a redress of grievances

Re: "Iran mutes a chorus of voices for reform"

(April 19, 2010)

To the Editor:

In the United states constitution, amendment 1 states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances". This is exactly the problem that Iran is having according to the article my Robert F. Worth. The people are not being allowed to express their discontent against the government. Their rights are being limited in a way that I believe, based on the formation of the Unites States, will result in a country that is not supported by its people. This is already happening. The people are being suppressed based on their discontent with their government. If the people cannot express their opinions on the governing body, they will not feel as though they have any ownership in the government, and therefore will not feel compelled to abide by its rules unless out of fear. This is the direction the Iranian government is heading. By silencing all those in opposition to the government, it will create an atmosphere of fear in which the people do not speak out for what they believe in, not because it is in alignment with the government's actions, but because they are afraid of the consequences should they speak out.

A need for safety

Re: " Wave of Fatal Bombings Widens Fissures in Iraq"

(April 23, 2010)

To the Editor:

The death counts and stories of suicide or roadside bombings are nothing new to the news coverage of the Middle-East. However, their affects are different depending on the groups carrying out the attacks, and the reactions of the people. In Baghdad, the bombs are causing a fissure between the people and their faith in the government. This is a dire circumstance. Exactly how dire this circumstance is was completely overlooked by your article. When people no longer feel that their government has any control in the situation, that is when they join militant groups such as Al Qaeda or the Taliban. Out of fear or anger or a desperation to do something about their current situation, these militant groups know that if they can offer a degree of protection in times of turmoil, they will gain followers. By the government indecision and apparent power of Al Qaeda, the area is looking at an increase in violence as the groups gain membership and thus power. The way to combat this surge in membership is to first attempt some sort of stabilization of the governing forces so that the people feel there is another body to watch out for them, and then to go after the militant groups. Going about it the other way around will only result in further fractioning of the already unstable, volitile government.

A side not often considered

Re: "Mood is dark as Israel Marks 62nd year as a nation"

(April 19th, 2010)

To the Editor:

Thank you for exposing a side of this Israel-Palestine conflict not often heard, and even more infrequently considered. When one hears a story from history it is all too easy to pick a side. One side is good and one side is evil, right? Regardless of which side you decide for yourself is the right one to support, the other side is still human, and chances are good that this other side is hurting as well. It is important not to demonize one group of people just because you do not agree with them. In the Israel-Palestine conflict, the United States has allied itself with Israel. However I have heard much about how evil the Israelis are for occupying and taking advantage of the unfortunate Palestinians. I did not even consider the fact that Israel could be hurting as well. This article forced me to think about this fact, and now I view the conflict of a clash of governments, that has manifested itself in the actions, thoughts, and worries of the people. After all, isn't this how most national conflicts arise? Had the governments not clashes I have faith that the Israelis and the Palestinians would have gotten along peacefully. However, it has already been done. Now the people are left to deal with the aftermath.

Let's realize how lucky we are

Re: "TV Mystic Lingers in Saudi Jail"

(April 24, 2010)

To the Editor:

The long drawn out stay in jail that Mr. Sibat of Lebanon has gone through is truly a traumatizing set of circumstances for he and his family. While this is unjust and inhumane, it brings to light a perspective of the United States' justice system that as a citizen, we don't often think about. Often times, citizens of the United States feel as though our justice system isn't fair, but put in a world context, I would vehemently argue otherwise. In Saudi Arabia, "the judges think they are the interpreters of God's word, and this is the whole problem in Saudi Arabia". In the United States, while everyone has their own biases, the judicial system is set up with a just trial as a priority. Unfortunately in Saudi Arabia, cases like this one are not at all unlikely, as a matter of fact, this particular case is not a topic of much public attention or outrage. Many of us U.S. citizens may not realize how lucky we are. We are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Sibat is being treated with the opposite mindset. Hopefully, you have not had to go to jail for fraud, but I am almost certain that because our justice system is set up the way that it is, you would not be executed via "long, curved sword."

Obvious Antagonization?

Re: "Israeli Rightists Stir Tensions in East Jerusalem."

(April 25, 2010)

To the Editor:

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is affecting the lives of many people of the region. There is a long history of hurt and conflict between the two. The most basic concept to define the conflict is that Palestinians are angry that Israel took their land and forced them to leave it. With this in mind, isn't it obvious that it would be difficult to get Palestine to agree to a peace talk if Israel recently began creating another housing development in Palestinian territory? It seems to me that if Israel were really serious about a lasting peace negotiation, instead of doing it to appease its ally, The U.S., it wouldn't make sense to go through with an action that will clearly antagonize the Palestinian people, whether or not that was the intention. Either way, if both sides are serious about wanting to begin lasting peace talks, there needs to be a mindfulness involved. The reactions of the "other side" need to be considered if Palestine and Israel truly want to make a compromise.

Post for March 24th: Double Whammy

Re: Israel Absorbs Twin Rebukes from Allies

While Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel is received with less than warmth at the White House by Mr. Obama, his nation is also very coldly regarded by the United Kingdom. While the expulsion of the Israeli ambassador may have been a bit extreme and damaged some of the trust build up between Britain and Israel. It was a necessary wake up call for the Israeli government. Their double-faced and inconstant manner is only making solving the conflict more precarious and is creating doubts as to whether their heart is actually in the peace talks. This approach is also exasperating Israel’s allies and the global forum at large. With the assassination of the Hamas leader, allegedly by the Mossad operatives, Europe has taken a much cooler view of Israel and the conflict ensuing there in.

Post for March 19th: Israel seeks peace but continues tarrying .

Re: Israeli Suggests Steps to Aid Peace Talks by: Isabel Kerhner and Mark Landler

It is globally know that the U.S. supports Israel with both foreign aid funds and political maneuvers. Israel has entered into peace talks with the Palestinian Authority while building orthodox housing in East Jerusalem. These actions are confusing for the political world and demonstrate a lack of commitment on the part of the Israeli government for peace. I understand these actions may be part of the conflicting interests present within the Israeli program and the pull of global policies. However until all forces are unified with a common interest they will only cancel each other out and nothing will come of it.

Will no one look further???

Re: “American Aid Official Visits Kandahar After Attacks on Contractors” (April 19, 2010)

To the Editor:

I wonder if it has crossed the minds of the officials commenting or the author writing about this incident that maybe the woman, or the company itself has done something to make the Taliban target them? I am sure that senseless acts of violence are never what they seem. When there is conflict there is always a choice, to settle with words or settle with action. The Taliban has discovered that action generally works to convey the messages they wish us to know. If things like bombings and assignations really work than why should they try anything else? It is truly a tragedy that this young girls life was lost, but we have to look at this as a way to discover what we can do to mend the situation. Figure out why the Taliban killed her and why they are threatening other employees of the same company. Perhaps it has nothing to do with the individual people but rather the company itself. Further investigation must be done, and it seems that investigation into the development assistant programs should be done as well. What do we really know about those we are hiring, what their family situation is like, and if they have any supporters of the Taliban in their family? If any of these things are investigated and found to be true we can possibly figure out why these people are being targeted and if their lives are truly in danger. One thing is clear, further investigation should be made before any more statements are released.

Bodies are People

Re: Wave of Fatal Bombings Widens Fissures in Iraq (April 24, 2010)

To the Editor:
This article of Steven Lee Myers and Duraid Adnan, demonstrates the frustrations in media reporting. The most disturbing is the way in which the article addresses people who have died. Their body parts are objectified as if they are furniture pieces left in the debris. One article discussed that “At least seven explosions spread carnage in neighborhoods across Baghdad…” The reality is that seven bomb explosions killed people. The article also said that “The force of the blasts severed bodies and charred more than a dozen cars nearby.” Bodies are elevated at the same level as cars. These bodies are people. Even if one wants to look at the religious sense that the bodies no longer have spirits, it is still important to realize that these bodies represent the people that were loved and who are painfully missed. Emotion is important when discussing people. They are not objects in the street. The objectification of people represents the political take on the conflict between the moderates and the extremists. The extremists say that they are going to take bombs to kill people. Than the moderates say they are going to take guns to punish the bombs. It is a mixed message. Instead it is important to stop and to brainstorm ways that moderates and extremists can solve problems without tearing apart the lives of their fellow human beings. Such solutions could be to discuss similarities and differences between the goals of the moderates. This does not seem bad when violence is no longer a driving force.

If Only Everyone Could Live Freely

RE: Assassination in Kandahar Further Erodes Afghans' Faith in the Government
Wednesday, April 21, 2010

In Afghanistan on Monday night Azizullah Yarmal, Kandahar's deputy mayor, was killed in a mosque as he prayed. The Afghans are now in a state of disappointment and probably hopelessness. Everyday, they see destruction and death and now they can't even feel safe when they pray. Often times, their religion is all they have to guide them through life and even that get's oppressed. They just want to live freely and enjoy life, but instead they live in fear and under control. It's sad that they will never know what it's like to not be in fear in their house and when they leave. The majority of the world will never understand what they and others in the middle east go through everyday. They cannot have any confidence in their government or their fellow citizens to keep them safe and provide stability in their communities. In the end, I think that's what they really want. Stability in their governments, communities and families. Because right now, they have none of this. So, when we are unhappy in our own lives sometimes, take a moment to think about people in these types of situations. People that have miserable lives not because they did it to themselves, but from reasons they have no control over.

A Safe Learning Enivroment for All

RE: At Top University, a Fight for Pakistan’s Future (4/21/10)

To the editor:
At the top university in Pakistan, a militant Islamic group is terrorizing the campus. Recently, they attacked one of the more liberal professors, leaving him nearly unconscious. Another professor noted that there can no longer be a free flow of thoughts and ideas because students are too scared to anger this militant group. This is not just a problem in the university but reflects the larger problem in Pakistan as well: there is a large majority who are open and liberal minded but do not speak fearing retribution from militant Islamic groups. As Pakistan looks to progress and move forward, it is sad that the will of the majority are being silenced by a violent minority. Professors who are standing up for what is right are heroes, but in order to solve this problem there must be a response from the school administration or the government. In order for Pakistan to continue to advance, their top students need to have an atmosphere of safety and acceptance in order to learn and grow.

Is France Racist??

"Sarkozy Says He Supports Bill Banning Full Veils"
By Steven Erlanger

President of France, Nicolas Sarkozy, is putting forward a bill in May that would ban the full veil in public. This article however we quite biased towards the French. This is a quote from the article: " On the left the veil is seen as repressive and a violation of women's rights, even though many women who wear the veil insist that they are doing it as a free choice and see a ban as a restriction of their liberty." It could only maybe be considered a violation of rights in the Arab countries that require women to cover their hair at the least, but to say this is repressive in a country like France does not make sense to me. Also, the article makes it seem as though the women who were asked about the veil said this because they have to; did the word insist really have to be used? Is France turning into a country that wants all of its people to look and behave the same ways, or is it trying to rid the country of its Muslims?

Revenge still not sweet

RE: Hamas Executes Two Accused of Aiding Israel (April 16th 2010)

To the Editor:

Since the removal of Israeli occupation of the Gaza strip and the recent violence between Hamas, Fatah, and Israel, the state of unrest is most evident in this article. The dictionary definition of terrorism is "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes." Hamas, killing two people from Palestine this past week argue that they were Israeli spies and even though courts had administered a life sentence in prison Hamas decided to take it into their own hands. The men were executed by a firing squad and no press was allowed near the bodies. Outside countries look to the group as terrorists and as an organization looking towards revenge and violence instead of peace. If Hamas was looking forward to win the democratic elections in years to come, this was not the mode of action to take. I feel these actions against their own citizens, even if they are spies, is a step in the wrong direction.

Time to Grow Up

RE: Mood Is Dark As Israel Marks Its 62nd Year As a Nation (20 April 2010)

To the Editor:

As with any conflicting country, there are many trials that it must go through in order to achieve peace. And it takes time; some reach that goal fast whilst others do not. Considering how short a time Israel has been a country, it has made significant progress. Even with the continual conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, the country has made strides to support itself. It is then through these observations that I find the article's Israeli arguments that the Obama administration is not supporting the country contradictory. America can remain an ally to Israel, but Israel should not continue to take for granted American support if they are truly dedicated to becoming a strong, peaceful country. The country should not forget how far it has come in the past 62 years, but it should not dwell on that past when looking ahead for a brighter future with the prospects of peace and prosperity.

Kellye Tamura
21 April 2010
Greeley, Colo.

Questionable Loyalties?

Re: “Afghan Investigators Say U.S. Troops Tried to Cover Up Evidence in Botched Raid” (April 6, 2010)

To the Editor:

Oh my goodness. It is absolutely appalling that people would even consider digging out bullets from the bodies of people they clearly killed. I am shocked disgusted that these accusations were made, and if proven true, committed. With claims like these emerging months after the initial attack (the raid occurred on Feb. 12) it is unclear if these allegations are true. Obviously the American soldiers involved are not going to fess up because they felt the need to hide the deaths in the first place. The only view we have of these events is those of the family members of those killed. It seems that each side is bias and that no true conclusion can be drawn because of the length of time between these two incidents and the bias on both sides.

It seems as though the civilians killed could have been reduced. What was the reasoning behind shooting two pregnant women? What could these women have been doing that was questionable to their political loyalties?

Newsworthy... Still???

Re: “Uncertainty Continues Around Pakistan Corruption Case” (April 1, 2010)

To the Editor:

Why is corruption still newsworthy?

It seems everyone today is doing it. Do those who were taken advantage of really want to continue to hear about how stupid they were to believe those in power? Do they really want to continue to hear how little is being done to punish those who are corrupt? I would not think so, so why do these things continue to pop up in our news sources? Is there not something more noteworthy occurring in the world? Those who tend to be corrupt are those with power issues, by publishing stories about them and keeping their names in the press we are only feeding their need for power. A ridiculous and unnecessary article that only gives authority to those who should hold nothing but empty hands.

Allowing the easy way out...

Re: “Bin Laden Threatens Any Americans Held” (March 26, 2010)

To the Editor:

It does seem to be the, “height of absurdity” to think in anyway that Al Qaeda has any Americans alive and in their possession today. Not to sound morbid but with the numbers of those tortured and beheaded by the organization it is ridiculous to believe that those in the hands of Al Qaeda are safe and unharmed. Bin Laden is playing the American heartstrings like a guitar, claiming they have possession of our citizens and will not kill them in exchange for the life of one of their own.

To Americans it may seem strange that those affiliated with organizations like Al Qaeda support and endorse suicide bombing, but do not like the idea of a “chief planner” being executed by the country he tried to destroy. It appears to be the easy way out in my eyes. Suicide, death, execution, whatever you would like to call it is all just the easy way out. These acts are simply a way to get the guilty out of our minds and out of our prisons. Why not let the man live out his natural life always thinking about the pain he caused and the lives he stole? This would be the greatest revenge as well as a way to show those after him, we do not tolerate terrorism and will not let you take the easy way out.

Death, in a way, means forgiveness.

Lost in Translation??

Re: “Israelis Resist Demands From U.S. on Construction” (March 11, 2010)

To the Editor:

The problem seems to be that those in charge are not willing to give up their power to decide what happens and what does not. Both the Israelis and the United States believe that they have the power to dictate what happens in Jerusalem. Both parties are so concerned with the amount of power they each have that no one is looking at the underdog (the Palestinians). It has been made clear that the Palestinians are not relinquishing what little say they do have in the matter. Both sides need to sit down and have DIRECT communication with each other on the matters at hand. Both Israel and Palestine need to stop going through the United States to get their views across. No one will ever understand one another if they are always playing a game of telephone. Things get lost in translation and indirect communications. The issue is that Israel is building houses in East Jerusalem when the United States thought that they would hold off on construction until talks with Palestine were complete. This of course is not the case. Things are getting lost in translation, things that could have a huge impact on the conflict in the Middle East.

Is it worth all the trouble if no one wins in the end?

Picnics and Celebrations are Deadly

Re: "Bombs Kill 13 Afghans; Elderly Man Dies in Raid" March 22, 2010

To the Editor:

I know that it is probably the height of naivete to wonder what this world has come to when people celebrating a holiday are killed in a bombing. However, I find it difficult to understand why thirteen people were killed in Afghanistan during a Norwuz celebration. I also wonder why the news these deaths was paired with a story of an elderly man killed in a raid. These two topics had little in common other than both happened in Afghanistan and resulted in the deaths of innocent people. Both of these events are tragedies. Don't they qualify as their own story? It seems to be more tha sad that these events were shoved together in a story smashed into the margin. Surely we've become too comfortable with the deaths of people in the Middle East if the news of picnickers being killed and innocent people being killed in taids no longer warrants the front page. It is truely a sad commentary on today's world.

Nuclear Power for All?

Re: "Israel Plans Nuclear Plants for Civilian Use" March 10, 2010

To the Editor:

I find it interesting that France supports Israel's push for nuclear technology. They say it will be used strictly for civilian use, yet France is one of the countries opposed to Iran using nuclear power for medical purposes. Doesn't that seem a little hypocritical? I realize that in the past, Western countries have had a reason to doubt the word of Iran. I know, also, that the West has maintained strong ties with Israel, but it seems to me to be wrong to say one countryin the Middle East has more right to nuclear tschnology than another country. Such comments are what make Middle Eastern countries distrustful of the West. Also, who's to say that Israel will use the technology for civilian use only? Isn't it possible that there is a chance that Palestine could be a target for the newly acquired power? Jordan is right to postpone cooperation unti a settlement can be reached in the conflict. One can never be too sure of another's motives.