Tattered US Flag

Once again a tattered US flag is becoming the symbol of a grieving nation.

I'm tired of this tattered US flag crap, especially the way the one from New York has been taken around the country to open everything form the Salt Lake Olympics to small charity events.

I really hope that this image of the resilience of the US flag - after all, it survived a hurricane when some things and people did not - does not take on the same significance as the last one. I can imagine people thinking that the US flag is so tough, it's way tougher than other nylon flags (especially the old Iraqi flag) and it means that come terrorists or big storms our spirit will not be quenched.

It's all way too boring and annoying.

12. The Opportunity by Richard N. Haass

This book is an extremely high level overview of one possible foreign policy option suited for today's world.

It is refreshing that the author seems fairly non-partisan, condemning Bush's Iraqi mis-adventure and praising Clinton's efforts in Kosovo, for example. This is offset by the fact that he appears to believe that the current administration actually thought there were WMD in Iraq which is why we went to war - am I the only person who knew that there were no WMD in Iraq at the time of the most recent invasion?

In any case, the author calls his approach integration. Generally speaking, he argues that the world and the great powers are faced with a great opportunity to restructure international relations so that they work better. The reason we have such an unprecedented opportunity, according to the author, is that unlike most other times in the past 100 years there is negligible chance that the great powers will go to war against each other in the near term so we can focus all of our efforts on rebuilding.

The author might be correct but the flesh that he puts on the skeleton of 'opportunity' is fairly half baked and not nearly detailed enough. He suggests that we - being the US - begin by getting the current world powers to agree to a set of principles that we feel cannot be breached by any country. He suggests that these principles should be very general and almost no brainers such as, we will not tolerate any country that commits genocide.

He then suggests that the US needs to take a leading role to get the major international powers to buy into these principles by arguing that nations do not need to be as sovereign as they are today, there needs to be greater economic integration, there needs to be more multi-lateralism and there needs to be less dependence on fossil fuels.

The fatal flaw of this book is that the author puts forward a very high minded approach for us to take but he does not account for any of the roadblocks to implementing this approach. In a world that is so self interested that the so called great powers almost ignored genocide in the former Yugoslavia, totally missed the genocide in Rwanda and are doing the same with the Sudan how can someone possibly think that we are ready to aspire to the higher more self-less goals that the author speaks of?

Doppe! Doppe!

That was the cry of the French when Lance Armstrong was climbing the Plateau de Baille in the Summer of 2002. In fact, that has been the cry of many anti-Armstrong cycling enthusiasts for many years now. It now appears that the cry of the French is a step closer to the truth. There is a lot of noise around this issue so let's try to examine the facts as we know them.



Arguments for drug use by Armstrong

1. Traces of EPO found in his 1999 'B' urine samples;
2. The tests were conducted by a credible lab, one of very few labs that has the ability to do EPO tests and is commissioned by the IOC to run some of the Olympic tests;
3. Close association with Dr. Michele Ferrari, the European BALCO, meaning that he used Ferrari as part of his training regime and had a close relationship with him until Ferrari was taken to court;
4. The book L.A. Confidential (which has never been translated from the original French) is a chronicle by a respected English cycling journalist of the things that people who are no longer in Lance's inner circle did to hide the doping, including taking bags of needles and disposing of them;
5. In the 1999 Tour de France Amrstrong tested positive for using a corticosteroid cream which he said was to treat saddle soars;
6. In March 2005 a former assistant claims that he was fired after finding a box of steroids in Armstrong's bathroom.

Arguments against drug use by Armstrong

1. He is the most drug tested athlete of our time and if he was using EPO presumably it would show up in other tests;
2. Many French people hate him so this could easily be a case of an angry lab worker trying to frame him;
3. The French newspaper L'Equipe which revealed the results of the tests has always had an axe to grind with him;
4. His cancer therapy likely required him to take a lot of EPO so it is conceivable, but unlikely according to an oncologist I spoke to, that there would be remnants in his system;
5. The test results revealed by L'Equipe were the results of research, it is unclear if the proper protocols were followed in these tests.

I am a big believer that the simplest answer is generally the right answer. And have long maintained that the simplest answer is not that there is some conspiracy against Armstrong but that he has taken EPO or other drugs from time to time.

I doubt if anything will come of this though. The B sample is not enough, in and of itself, to convict Armstrong and it appears that all his other samples are clean.

11. Islamic Modernism, Nationalism, and Fundamentalism Episode and Discourse by Mansoor Moaddel

My objective in reading this book was to try to get a better understanding of the rise of fundamentalist Islam. As it turned out this book is more sociology than history and as a result I struggled to get through it, not because it was boring but because sociology is a discipline that has so much jargon that it is difficult to read a book like this which offers little in explanations of this jargon.

Nevertheless, as best as I can tell, the author's thesis is that the development of fundamentalist Islam in the Middle East and the Indian sub-continent was not the result of consistent long term economic, social or political changes in the Middle East, rather, the shift from the previous ideology in the Middle East to today's fundamentalist ideology was an episodic discourse that happened sporadically over a period of time.

Unfortunately, I don't know enough about the theories that the author is trying to refute to tell you whether he is right or wrong, what I can say is that he puts forward a fairly compelling analysis to support his thesis.

What I found most interesting about the book is that at some point in the modern era Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Iran all had fledgling liberal democratic regimes that, at least, held power for a short period of time. In Iran, for example, between 1905 and 1911 the country was run as a bona fide constitutional monarchy; in the 10 years prior to the Ba'ath party's take over in both Syria and Iraq both countries were also run as mostly secular democracies; and in the late 1800s the incumbent political party in Egypt was, what the author calls, a liberal modernist Islamic party which was a lot better than what came after it.

In all of these countries the last half century has seen a regression from fledgling liberal democracies to totalitarian Islamic states. The author ascribes a variety of reasons for these changes but it basically boils down to the following pattern: (1) the liberal democracies emerged in each of these countries; (2) the leaders of these democracies tried to devise secular governments; (3) the Islamic clergy, who in each case had a lot to lose financially, opposed any such change and mobilized diverse groups of people against the liberal democrats; and (4) the governments could not sustain the pressure from the clergy and collapsed.

In the case of Iran, the Shah replaced the liberal democracy twice - once in 1911 and a second time in 1963 - and was eventually overthrown by the clergy when he went too far in trying to create a secular state.

It was an interesting but tough book to get through.

A Little Education on the Islamic Faith (from Islam Online)

Islam's stance on oral sex 3/3/2004 10:30:00 AM GMT

Respected scholars of Islam, As-Salamu `Alaykum wa Rahmatu Allah wa Barakatuh. What is the Islamic stance on oral sex between the husband and his wife? Jazakum Allah khayran.


Answer
Wa`alykum As-Salaamu Warahmatullahi Wabarakaatuh.

In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger.

Dear questioner, thank you so much for your concerns about your religion and Allah’s teachings even in what concerns your sexual life with your wife.

As regards your question, it is to be noted, first of all, that all acts that aim at satisfying and pleasing the spouses are allowable so long as two things are avoided, that is anal sex and having sex with a wife while she is still in her menstruation. Thus, it is permissible for a husband and a wife to practice cunnilingus and fellatio. Following we’d cite the opinions of some well-known Muslim scholars in this regard:

The eminent Muslim scholar, Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi states:

“I was asked about oral sex in America and Europe when I began to travel to these countries in the early 70s. We are not used to be asked these questions in our Muslim countries. Those Western people are accustomed to stripping naked during sexual intercourse. These are communities of nakedness, and from the licentiousness of the woman that she wears nothing to screen her body in her daily life.

So, they are in need of more excitements during copulation. However, men in our Muslim societies see nothing in the Muslim woman that can excite them on the basis of her wearing either Hijab (veil) or Niqab (face cover). But concerning whether being in complete nakedness during practicing copulation is lawful or not, the Prophet of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, is reported to have said, "Guard your private parts except from your wife or your slaves."

Muslim jurists are of the opinion that it is lawful for the husband to perform cunnilingus on his wife, or a wife to perform the similar act for her husband (fellatio) and there is no wrong in doing so. But if sucking leads to releasing semen, then it is Makruh (blameworthy), but there is no decisive evidence (to forbid it).

These parts are not dirty like anus, but it is ordinarily disgusting to man. But there is no decisive evidence to make it unlawful, especially if the wife agrees with it or achieves orgasm by practicing it. Allah, Exalted and Glorified be He, says: "And who guard their modesty, save from their wives or the slaves, that I heir right hands possess, for then they are not blameworthy, but Who so craveth beyond that, such are transgressors.” (Al-Mu'minun: 5-7)”

In the light of this, scholars maintain that the husband is allowed to enjoy his wife through any means of enjoyment except anal sex, for that is strictly forbidden.

Dr. Ali Jum`ah, professor of the Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence at Al-Azhar Univ., says further that licking, sucking and kissing spouse's sexual organs are all allowed, as long as it gives a person sexual gratification that will keep him away from Haram (unlawful) or starring at opposite sex (marriageable). But every Muslim must keep in mind that sexual intercourse is just a lust and passion that must be satisfied in a lawful way; it's not to be perceived as necessary as foods and drinks, as it's the case in the Western perverted ideology.

Shedding more light on this, Dr. Sabri `Abdul Ra’ouf, professor of Islamic Comparative Jurisprudence, at Al-Azhar Univ, says that it's allowed for the married couple to enjoy each other as long as what they do does not run counter to the teachings of Islam or violate the public norms. He also gives support to the view of Sheikh Al-Qaradawi that oral sex or kissing private parts of the spouse is something viewed disgusting to Muslims, but if the aim is just kissing (without having constant indulgence in it) it's not sinful to do that, but people of high morality normally keep away from that, as not to give in to imitating non-Muslims.”

In conclusion, it has become clear now that oral sex is not prohibited, but it is not the normal choice for committed Muslims and Muslimahs. That's, despite that oral sex is not Haram, it is completely disgusting and does not conform to the pure taste and decency of a Muslim personality.

Here, it should be noted that one of the main objectives of Shari`ah is to safeguard the life of people and keep them healthy. Based on this, if it is scientifically proven that oral sex or such practices cause mouth cancer or form a danger on the health of a person who practices it, then it becomes totally prohibited.