APACHE LINE: FROM GANGS TO HIP HOP (2004 trailer) by Jorge "FABEL" Pabon and Johnny "ZIP"

zulu beat show on whbi, 1983

Obama's Libya Speech.

If you missed the speech, it was being broadcast on Youtube live as well as all news stations (that I know of) and even internationally. Here is PBS's post on Youtube, it was a short 26 mins:

 You can get the full transcript here:

Most of the analysts after the speech seemed to conclude he made a good case for Americans to support the cause. Although I don't like showing highlights because I want people to read or watch the whole speech, there were several points that stood out to me.

(You can read my opinion on Libyan intervention (and what I want to see from U.S. foreign policy) here.)

 He established actions his administration had taken before the invasion: 

We then took a series of swift steps in a matter of days to answer Qadhafi's aggression. We froze more than $33 billion of Gadhafi's regime's assets. Joining with other nations at the United Nations Security Council, we broadened our sanctions, imposed an arms embargo, and enabled Qadhafi and those around him to be held accountable for their crimes.

Next, he pointed out the conditions on the ground: 

Innocent people were targeted for killing. Hospitals and ambulances were attacked. ...Supplies of food and fuel were choked off. Water for hundreds of thousands of people in Misrata was shut off. Cities and towns were shelled, mosques were destroyed and apartment buildings were reduced to rubble. Military jets and helicopter gunships were unleashed upon people who had no means to defend themselves against assaults from the air.

As Qaddafi advanced to Beghazi, full of 700,000 people opposed to the dictator, genocide was bound to occur. In the face of this, military action became the appropriate response: 

We knew that if we wanted - if we waited one more day, Benghazi - a city nearly the size of Charlotte - could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world...... [When speaking of international action] To lend some perspective on how rapidly this military and diplomatic response came together, when people were being brutalized in Bosnia in the 1990s, it took the international community more than a year to intervene with air power to protect civilians.

 He then called out the anti-interventionist and directly responded to them:

It's true that America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs. And given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action. But that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what's right. In this particular country, Libya, at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale. We had a unique ability to stop that violence: an international mandate for action, a broad coalition prepared to join us, the support of Arab countries, and a plea for help from the Libyan people themselves. We also had the ability to stop Qadhafi's forces in their tracks without putting American troops on the ground.

He believed that passing UN resolutions that didn't do much were just "empty words" and would have led to a massacre. He also continued by addressing the argument of those that say military action should expand, directly calling such a move a "mistake."

The President ended his speech, by what most consider, the new "Obama Doctrine." This will be the basis for a consistent policy in dealing with these uprisings, every other president for the past 30 years has established a doctrine, here is what he said: 

I have made it clear that I will never hesitate to use our military swiftly, decisively and unilaterally when necessary to defend our people, our homeland, our allies and our core interests....There will be times, though, when our safety is not directly threatened, but our interests and values are. Sometimes, the course of history poses challenges that threaten our common humanity and our common security - responding to natural disasters, for example; or preventing genocide and keeping the peace; ensuring regional security; and maintaining the flow of commerce. These may not be America's problems alone, but they are important to us, and they are problems worth solving. And in these circumstances, we know that the United States, as the world's most powerful nation, will often be called upon to help.

This will now be the basis for his administrations doctrine so long as he is president. You can see a list of previous doctrines here all the way back to Reagan.  One key component of the doctrine that differs from the Bush Doctrine is that, U.S. action can not be alone. The Bust Doctrine established, that the American government will work alone if it has to to attack the enemies of the nation, Obama's stands in direct contrast to than.

I think the president makes a good case for intervention in Libya, however, there will always be skeptics. I think that his integration of international coalitions is a positive change from previous doctrines because it decreases the burden on the U.S. and helps build consensus toward any action. It sends a message that the U.S. is part of the world, not alone in it.

To those opposing Libyan intervention because of your concerns for the U.S.  you need not worry since our involvement will begin to decrease (militarily). To those who don't care about the U.S. and oppose intervention, who are you to stop this intervention when the Libyan people were calling for action to save their lives? The coalition reduced the stress on the U.S. and helped stop massive killing. It would have also told Arab leaders that with enough force, they can stay in power. The Obama doctrine is not perfect, and there are some key areas that it doesn't meet up with my expectations for U.S. foreign policy, however, it is a welcome change.

You can get all these page updates by "Liking" the Facebook blog page! here : http://on.fb.me/hWYYmi or by following me on Twitter! http://bit.ly/fIU3d7 Please Share on your network, email, comment or subscribe!

The 51st State: Bronx Gangs - 1972

My Media Sources

Recently one of my older posts (before I had this kind of audience) has received a lot of attention. The amount of readers of my post " Media: Do you drink the Kool-Aid?" has increased so much (by 2500%) in the past few days, it has become the second most read post since I started this blog (second to "Vive la Révolution!"). When I first posted it, I was a bit disappointed because it barely received any viewership, but I'm glad it is receiving the attention that is currently is. 

With the renewed attention, I thought that I would include a list of the sources that I use for this blog to get my information. As I've said in my post, to get an accurate picture, you should at least look into 2-3 media sources because each one will highlight a different part of a specific conflict/issue. 

My sources include: Al Jazeera, CNN, Fox News, Haaretz, TIME, Techland, Mashable, MSNBC, NYTimes, Truthout, Politifact, BBC, the Telegraph, Islamopedia, Stratfor (by email), TED, Wikileaks, Talking Points Memo, and Politico. These are the sources that I have cited regularly in my blog; there would be no point in tracking every single source I've ever used (but my sources will continue to expand). 

None of the sources are objective per se, however, collectively they can give us a better idea of what is happening in the news than if I relied on one of them alone.

Since most of you may not have as much time as others, you only need a handful of these sources to get a better picture. If you don't even have the time for that, be cautious of the single source you use. For U.S. politics, I would recommend using Politico and Politifact. Both are websites that keep track of politicians' promises (on both sides, without a slant). For international events, I would recommend using Al Jazeera English and CNN International ( with the use of the Telegraph every once in a while).

If you just want to discover random secret information in the world, I would (without a doubt) recommend Wikileaks. They publish raw information and documents so you will have to get used to the formatting, however, the documents can be highly organized and easy to go through (that is why they are there). The site has 23,000 website domain names (to elude governments). The main U.S. page is all in numbers: http://213.251.145.96/  and the information you will gate is filtered to the major releases they have put out. I prefer the layout of their older site (and on all their mirror sites) here. I'm currently using Wikileaks to investigate the yearly Bilderburg meeting that world leaders (governments and businesses) have in extreme private every year (will post when I'm done!).

I would also like to point you toward another one of my older posts on the news titled "News that Matters."  Highly related to this post and the more popular one, you may find it interesting.


You can get all these page updates by "Liking" the Facebook blog page! here : http://on.fb.me/hWYYmi or by following me on Twitter! http://bit.ly/fIU3d7 Please Share on your network, email, comment or subscribe!

Six suspected motorcycle gang members arrested in the wake of a 2009 bar fight in Preston appear to be moving closer to a trial.

Court records show that six men charged for their roles in the beating and stabbing of a Norwich man at the Brookside Cafe have continued to reject undisclosed offers in their cases. The cases are now on the trial list with an undetermined start date.

Records also show that senior assistant state’s attorney Vincent J. Dooley upgraded charges last month, charging each of the men with first-degree assault. The six men, “members of an organization known as the Legion of Doom, did intentionally cause serious physical injury,” to victim Kevin Kennedy, Dooley wrote.  

Police arrived at the former Brookside Cafe on Route 2A at 1:38 a.m. June 28, 2009, to find large groups of people scattering in all directions. Witnesses told police the six men had beaten Kennedy, who was hospitalized with multiple injuries, including a knife wound to his leg.

The fight started when Kennedy bumped one of the gang members, police said.

Witnesses said as many as 20 gang members spread out in different areas of the bar’s porch and started chanting, “LOD,” and “860,” code for “hands-on fight,” before rushing Kennedy, police said.

Kennedy, who was dragged outside the bar by friends, was followed by a group and repeatedly kicked and punched in the head while he lay on the ground, police said. Some witnesses said members of the group yelled racial slurs.

Witnesses said the accused men were speaking in code and wearing black leather vests with red, white and gray Legion of Doom patches on the backs of their vests.

The following men are now charged with first-degree assault:

Carlos Aguinaga Jr., 28, formerly of Gales Ferry; Michael C. Cavaluzzi, 25, of Peekskill, N.Y.; James C. Condict, 28, of 113 Georgia St. in Groton; Steven A. Franchino, 27, of Middle Village, N.Y.; Ricky T. Gray, 44, of Brooklyn, N.Y.; and Justin Schwartz, 28, of Flushing, N.Y.

Gray faces the most severe charges. He faces two counts of first-degree assault, tampering with evidence, inciting a riot and inciting injury to a person.   

Attorneys for the men, many of whom have filed motions for separate trials, could not be reached Thursday for comment.

Clarrification on: Libya Intervention?

My last post discussed my stance on Libyan intervention by a coalition of NATO, the operation of which was just recently handed over to NATO. I would advise reading the extensive piece first, then reading this one as it clarifies my position based on my older post. 

Since I posted it important things have happened, namely, the coalition has handed control of the operations to NATO.


This mostly includes enforcement of the no-fly zone, however the coalition is looking at more creative uses. The joint military of the nations have begun to use their air-power to help strengthen rebel attacks against Qaddafi, recently capturing key cities. This move began after the full implementation of a no-fly zone was enforced. It was only begun after military leaders established that the Libyan air force can not function and the army severely restricted. For those worried that Libya is a precursor to a 2003 Iraq, David Gergen will allay your fears.

The switch to NATO has garnered the support of another Muslim country, and an influential one at that, Turkey. Although I support the coalition's intervention in Libya and support the operation as a whole, I find my support for NATO not as strong. I've always felt that NATO's purpose was to protect member nations and I feel that taking over this operation doesn't quite fit the mold anymore. I would have preferred that an international coalition continue to organize it instead of NATO, but what is done is done. 

Meanwhile, President Obama's plan seems to be going according to plan (though not completely). The U.S. has led the initial attacks to destroy Qaddafi's air defenses with the largest amount of missiles fired . France and England were the first to begin the airplane strikes and continue to be the most frequent bombers. The President's aim was to work with the international community and not against it, like in Iraq; to have limited U.S. role in something he (and I) believes the U.S. can not ignore. Soon enough, the United States will continue to draw back it's role in the intervention and allow the larger coalition to enforce the no-fly zone. He has called for the policy because he wants to stop the otherwise slaughter of the Libyans, but didn't want to make the U.S. seem as if it were invading another Muslim nation. That is why the coalition was so necessary and support by nations like Turkey and organizations like the Arab League is key. There is a method to what many consider madness.

With this said, if you want to read why I support the intervention in Libya, and what I want to see of U.S. foreign policy in the future, click here.

You can get all these page updates by "Liking" the Facebook blog page! here : http://on.fb.me/hWYYmi or by following me on Twitter! http://bit.ly/fIU3d7 Please Share on your network, email, comment or subscribe!

QUOTE OF THE DAY

Writers (graff artist) and bboys love the arts the same way Stock Brokers and Stick Up Kids like robbing people.

~Crazy Legs

Libyan Intervention?

***Update*** Fareed Zakaria wrote an interesting piece in TIME that speaks to the reasoning behind Obama's strategy.

I've also included a "Clarification" post on the subject to set things straight.  

 

Since the implementation of the International Coalition's (European nations, the United States and now several Arab nations) no-fly zone as a result of UN Resolution 1970 there has been the fierce debate of whether the actions are justified. I've talked to different friends and family, as well as readers as far out as California, Lebanon and even Egypt to get their opinions on the issue; the debate is far from partisan with support and opposition coming from many different political followings in the spectrum and sometimes, seemingly, from them all. Even John Stewart spent his most recent show overwhelming attacking the intervention (for the first 3/4th of it).

I've met Arabs who have come out in support of the no-fly zone, and others against it. I've decided to contribute with a post to this extremely important debate about my own opinion and reasoning. Please feel free to reasonably disagree in the comments below.

Before going forward, I would like to make an important assumption: That  those who partake in this debate  want Libyans, Egyptians, Tunisians, Yemenis, Bahrainis, and Iranians (etc) to live in free societies and have the freedoms we all value. The ultimate goal is freedom for the people, and any arguments against that are irrelevant because we have fundamental philosophical disagreements.

_________________________________________________________________

Ever since the uprisings began in Tunisia, 2011 has been an extraordinary year. More people have found their voices in such a short period of time (a few months) than I've seen in my short years of consciousness. It has reminded and humbled me in appreciating the free society I live in and the luxuries I have to assemble, speak and more.

With this appreciation of my freedoms I openly supported UN Resolution 1970 and even nicknamed it "Sweet Justice" in a previous blogpost. The debate that has begun has only reaffirmed my support of the initiative led by an international coalition. I do not base my opinion on fear of being named a "flip-flopper" (what people in the U.S. call politicians that use their reasoning)  nor on some kind of Western arrogance or pride in "America the Great." My support for the initiative stands strong because of my conviction that what the coalition is doing is the best thing we can do to help the Libyans.

Allow me to point out some important facts that seem to be lost in the discussion, followed by my affirmative reasoning for my support (I've been writing this for a while and have a 1001 thoughts going on, so forgive me if I miss any good points on either side).

My Case:

"Inconsistency:"

The changes in the region are historical in scope but also in speed. With such fast changes, the world seems to assume that nations like the United States have predetermined outlines of what actions to take given these once in a lifetime events.

This assumption has led many people to attack the President's administration on "inconsistency." The argument is made by all sides (inside and outside the U.S.) yet doesn't recognize the historical and real-world situation. The point still remains that there is no plan that any President could have prepared for such a situation. If the issue is of "inconsistency" then it must surely be true that the only consistency that U.S. foreign policy has ever had, has been its persistent support of these dictators. This "wobbling" policy is not weakness or a sign of no leadership, it is a sign that the government is changing it's position.

On, Jan 25th, the Obama administration met to discuss the developments in Egypt. According to the LA Times article. During the meeting, Obama recognized that a change in policy was needed to have human rights and freedom as a more central goal. I talked about the change in policy in a previous post titled "U.S. Changes Foreign Policy." With the change in policy, it is no wonder that there have been mixed messages as well "inconsistencies" in front of probably the most important time in the Arab World's history. There is no doubt that Obama is walking a fine-line with Qaddafi, but it is to act reasonably, not emotionally as they establish a better policy for the region.

History by who's side?:

With accusations of inconsistency, others have pointed out to historical evidence that international interventions have not worked in the past. Look at Bosnia, Somalia, and (what opponents call) a never ending list of failed intervention. I do concede that there is an interesting list of international interventions that haven't lived up to people's expectations, however, we must also remember times when the international community didn't  intervene, most infamously: Rwanda. What was the response? Complete and utter outrage (and rightfully so). The United States is in a lose-lose situation with opponents of military intervention. No intervention means the death of thousands (in Libya's case) and millions in Rwanda. Intervention breeds accusations of imperialism and "oil hunting."  With no options that will appease their opponents, what should we do? Not intervene at a time when President Clinton said it was the largest mistake in his career? Or jump in and try to help out where we can? I choose the latter.

"Other Options":

The history debate is surely an interesting one, and is usually followed when opponents say that the United States could have used it's other means first before considering military action. Oh how short our memories are! We forget that days before France and England began their push in the U.N. for a resolution, Qaddafi declared all out war on "drugged up protesters." We forget that he was gaining ground using his army that had supreme weapons over the rebels (with minimal help from the air-force). We forget that the SAME people opposing a no fly zone were the loudest protesters complaining to the international community of Qaddafi using his air-power to bomb the uprising. We forget that just a day before the U.N. Resolution 1970 was passed, Quaddafi's army was moving swiftly to Benghazi, the rebel stronghold, and would have destroyed the uprising in its place. We forget how "taking our time" would have led to accusations of "acting too late!!!" We forget how military intervention WAS the last option given the time constraints.

We even forget how the same "other option" proponents were outraged when the United States didn't publicly respond to what was going on in Egypt (as it quietly was pressuring Mubarak to make changes, and eventually go using their diplomacy). Hypocrisy is all I see, as well as a severe case of Alzheimer.  Oh how we forget!

Fiscal Responsibility:

Opponents has even gone so desperate as to make the fiscal responsibility argument: We can not afford to fight.  I call the argument desperate because it seeks to play on the outrage of overspending governments, especially in the United States and Europe, but moreso because the argument lacks good intent. If you are worried about fiscal responsibility (in the U.S.), everyone knows that what needs to be addressed are major programs like Social Security and Medicare. Yes, military spending should also be looked at (and cut in certain places in my opinion) however, the costs are expected to total a mere billion dollars. I use the word "mere" because a President Obama was scrutinized earlier on in the U.S. for making small "billion dollar changes" that didn't truly address larger fiscal issues in his 2011 budget proposal.

It is also desperate because of what it means. What if the United State decided not to get involved because of this argument? What would we have told the world? "Sorry, we didn't want to chip in?" or "Although priceless, human rights could not be paid for today."  I certainly don't want to imply that we should be spending non-stop in military funding and further increasing our national debt. What I'm saying is opposition to an operation that will take a little over a billion (or even 2) is not a viable argument. Where we can, I think the United States and others, should fund and support the establishment of free societies. With U.S. involvement significant, but poised to decrease over time, funding shouldn't be an issue soon enough.  The same applies here and fiscal responsibility can no longer stand as a strong argument (if it ever was).

Constitutionality of Actions:

A new argument has arisen against U.S. intervention in Libya: Obama's decision to get involved was unconstitutional and is a power that isn't delegated to the President.  I certainly don't know enough about the discussion to tell whether it is or isn't, however, I can predict that it will center around words like "war" and what they entail. Furthermore, the discussion may become less extreme and simply concentrate on discussing transparency to Congress by the President on such a major decision. However, as seen on the John Stewart show, a Constitutional scholar once said:

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation"

 The scholar was Barack Obama as an Illinois Senator in the early 2000s. 

Regardless of where this smaller debate goes, at the end of the day it doesn't really matter. His actions may have been constitutional or not but it is irrelevant to the larger debate of intervention in Libya and other places. The legality doesn't dictate the ethics of the decision, which is what we are discussing. One of the first things I learned in my legal classes is that just because something is legal doesn't mean it is ethical and vice verca.

The rest of the arguments I've heard:

There have also been (reasonable) outrage concerning the United States' long held double standard. Support for some dictators, opposition against others based on who the U.S. deems should stay in power. This outrage is certainly reasonable and although I don't believe that the Obama administration is going to switch decades of consistent policy within the next few months, I do see his change in policy to be a positive one. I'll speak about what I'd like to see in a bit.

Opponents have also argued, that if you support military intervention in Libya then you must support it in the horrible crackdown in Bahrain, Algeria, Yemen and more. Conversely, if you support no intervention, then no military intervention should ever be on the table (such as U.S. rhetoric against Iran). I think this is a very 1 dimensional approach and one that is a bit illogical. To say a copy paste approach should direct foreign policy is not considering the extreme differences in circumstances. Different countries have different relations with different powers, so where possible, the U.S. should take advantage of close diplomatic ties, and where not, consider military action.

This debate is extremely important because it discusses what exactly U.S. foreign policy should be based on. My arguments supporting intervention in Libya is usually followed by the argument that the U.S. shouldn't have its policy to spread democracy around the world. While I strongly disagree with the statement, I will say that no nation should be in the business of fomenting or forcing regime change or democracy down anyone's throats. Support for locally inspired uprisings is what is necessary.

My Vision:

This is what I'd like to see out of a revamped U.S. policy for the region:

1. Keeping military intervention as a last option (as I believe it was at a critical point in the Libyan conflict).

2. A centralization of human rights and improving living conditions (and freedoms) for all people in the region.

3. Where possible, nations should use their diplomatic efforts as well as possible sanctions to pressure governments to change (as they did with Mubarak, and applied to Qaddafi).

I support a U.S. goal to spread democracy and improve living conditions wherever possible for several reasons (Joe Klein makes his case for U.S. aid for Egypt- post revolution). First, poor living conditions help create a pool of recruitment for terrorist organization. Second, political reformation allows for other much more peaceful channels to alleviate political, social and economic frustrations. Such a policy is similar to basketball promotion in dangerous U.S. cities. Give them the alternative and they will stop selling drugs, shooting each other, etc. Third, the support of democracies at early stages places the United States in good faith with the newly elected governments. Fourth, America's image will improve around the world as well as our influence.

Fifth, the chances of a nation electing "Islamic radicals" may vary from nation to nation, however, with a democratic system in place, we can be assured that at some point (especially with fresh pro-democracy protests), no one will stay in power for too long. As Professor Fouad Ajami said concerning Libya:

These people have known hell for four decades. We should not worry about the vacuum that he would leave behind."

"We should not worry about the so-called jihadists will somehow fill the vacuum. All these are really boogeymen in a way. We should focus on what this man has been, on the terror he has been, on the crimes he has committed, on the Lockerbie -- on the attacks on civilian airliners, on all of this, his whole track record. That's what's in front of us."

Finally, democratic nations tend to go to war far less (because declaring it is much more difficult) and tend to have far less trouble with accepting terrorist organizations on their grounds. We are stuck with the only conclusion (and one I've been advocating for some time now) that it is in the United States' and the world' interest to promote democracy, freedom, and economic opportunity wherever and whenever possible. At no other point have I seen these two interests come together so well; we must take advantage of it. I want to see a foreign policy where books and jobs are used to fight the guns and bombs of terrorists.


Perhaps the strongest argument I have in support of intervention in Libya are the sound, pictures, and videos of celebration by Libyan rebels in and around Benghazi that rejoiced at the last minute vote and airstrikes that saved them; the Libyan protesters calling for international intervention; the jubilation and confidence born in the bloggers, fighters and protesters. These are the real world truths of the power of the coalitions' intervention. Study them well.

You can get all these page updates by "Liking" the Facebook blog page! here : http://on.fb.me/hWYYmi or by following me on Twitter! http://bit.ly/fIU3d7 Please Share on your network, email, comment or subscribe!

TECH Update: Big Moves

I was going to wait to post a new post in this series, but with so much going on, I feel I must. There have been some very big moves made by different companies in the tech industry lately, so let us begin. 

AT&T buys T-Mobile:

As a T-mobile customer, I've had mixed feelings about a possible merger. A few days ago, AT&T officially announced it's acquisition of T-mobile for 39 billion dollars. The government still needs to officially give the stamp of approval to the merger (based on anti-trust laws). If they make the hurdle the move will be a smart one for AT&T for several reasons: First, the merger would make the combined company the largest phone service company in the United States by beating out Verizon. You won't be seeing any more Verizon commercials advertising their size.  Second, AT&T can use T-mobile's infrastructure to help strengthen it's data support for it's very large smartphone industry (mainly due to it's now-expired deal with Apple for the iPhone). On T-mobile's side of things, the merger buys out a struggling company that was late to the smartphone industry. 

 

 Stephen Colbert had an older piece about the confusing mergers that AT&T has went through in the past:

There is a lot of concern that the merger would further deteriorate the already limited competition on phone service. If approved, AT&T and Verizon will have control over 70% of the industry, not very competitive in most's eyes. Others are worried, that T-mobile's strategy of low payment plans to target lower income families will be thrown out the window by AT&T for more expensive plans. Then people will have to choose to go to a smaller and more limited network like MetroPCS and Spring, or the expensive companies like Verizon or stay with AT&T. 

I speculate, the move is a reaction to the end of AT&T's exclusive  contract for Apple's iPhone which became available to Verizon earlier this year.

Verizon 4G Network Tested:

The world is moving toward a 4G network. Most companies are leaving their 3G network for faster speeds. Without being too technical, Verizon is starting a 4G network called LTE. and after several high profile tests by different websites and organizations, Verizon's network GREATLY outperformed it's competitors, with the average uploading speech 37% faster than anyone else (see the link for more info and stats). This is clearly good news and a counter punch to the announcement by AT&T about buying T-mobile. If the deal is finalized, the two companies' roles will completely switch: In 2010 Verizon had the largest network, AT&T (more often than not) the fastest. In 2011, AT&T may have the largest with Verizon the fastest (4G network which is the future!)

Sprint Joins forces with Google:

In an effort to stay relevant, Sprint and Google announced a new partnership.  Sprint will now outsource it's voice-mailing system to Google Voice. The deal has benefits for both companies, where Google can charge for it's very low rates for international phone calls (increasing it's userbase) and Sprint provides a great voice-mail service without charging any users for it (the outsourcing saves Sprint in costs). Look for more partnerships that Sprint may take advantage to not be third place in a two man race.

Google Wins in Court:

Google's Streetview project for its Google Maps has won in a German court. This is great news for the company and allows it to continue it's work throughout the country. At least for me, I've used the service extensively to map out an area I plan on visiting that I've never been to before. I hope this all works well!

You can get all these page updates by "Liking" the Facebook blog page! here : http://on.fb.me/hWYYmi or by following me on Twitter! http://bit.ly/fIU3d7 Please Share on your network, email, comment or subscribe!

Victory for Some, Losses For Others

As of this morning, President Obama's top military man Admiral Mike Mullin  is confident that allied forces have destroyed enough of Quaddafi's air defenses to enforce a 24/7 no-fly zone. Here he is on CNN giving viewers an update:

The enforcement of UN Resolution 1970 has helped protect rebels in their stronghold of Benghazi since it was passed by destroying Qaddafi's ability to bomb civilians with his airforce as well as advance his superior army toward their positions. Rebel leaders see this as a victory on their side. With less of an advantage, the fighters have a better chance at succeeding. 

A very detailed NYTimes article explains how the decision was made by the United States to help France and England push for the UN Resolution. Click here.

Egypt Votes:

Although I don't want to serve as a breaking news source, as off 1:45 pm (Eastern time), Egyptian officials have verified that the votes have been counted, with little inconsistencies or worries of corruption. The result? The nine constitutional amendments passed with around 77% voting "Yes" (they mostly dealt with presidential elections). 

A CNN report describes some of the amendments:

The proposed amendments include limiting the president to two four-year terms, capping emergency laws to six months unless they are extended by public referendum, and placing elections under judicial oversight.

 Interestingly, most of the opposition forces that helped drive the revolution, including a newly formed Revolution Youth Council have pushed voters to vote "No" on the 9 amendments. They argue that a completely new constitution is needed, not new amendments that were quickly drafted attached to an already flawed document.

The main supporter of the Amendments was the Muslim Brotherhood.   Either way, in the end, I don't think it matters as much if the constitution is completely replaced or not. We still see Egyptians voting in their most transparent elections for the first time in decades. Furthermore, the amendments themselves address many issues wrong with the past Egyptian government and with them passed, a push can begin for more constitutional changes. I have personally come to believe that the other groups only supported a "No" vote because passing the amendments would mean a quick election by the Summer time. If they were truly interested in drafting a new constitution (with no political intentions), they would have urged a "yes" vote since one of the articles that was passed establishes that a constitutional assembly be formed after elections, to come up with a new draft of the constitution, which would be approved or not by another referendum. The beauty of democracy is that, although you may not get what you want now, the constant change in leadership gives everyone the opportunity to push their ideas forward. 

Yemen and Bahrain:

I should lump these two nations together because they both have strong narratives and are far more strategically important for the world than Libya is. I do so, because their situations are becoming more similar.

Much has happened in Yemen, and as I write this I just received an update that the Yemeni government was fired by the President in response to protesters demands (it literally just came up, so I have no link!). Meanwhile, over the past few days, the Yemeni government has declared a state of emergency (this is usually followed by a crackdown) and has been forcing foreign reporters out of the country; as expected it has also attacked civilian protesters. Yemen's UN Envoy has resigned over the killings and the opposition remains persistent as each day breeds new protests.

Given the recent news, I'm not sure what entails a firing of the entire government. Mubarak forced the resignation of his government but he stayed in power. It is likely that President Saleh may try to do the same, despite demands of the protesters. If things continue to go this way, it seems these protesters are making similar gains as the Egyptians did! Let's cross our fingers. 

In a similar move with Yemen, the Bahrain government had also declared a state of emergency. In Bahrain, the government began its strong crackdown on protesters. It has also enforced a curfew and destroyed a protest symbol in one of its main squares where protesters gathered. This happens after Bahrain has asked several regional countries to come and "protect key assets" in the nation.

Syria: The Newest Uprising

 I was looking deeply at Syria as a country with the exact criteria needed for an uprising. I detailed the similarities of protests in an earlier post. Protests have finally begun in Syria in very small numbers (around 40-50 initially). They are calling for nothing less than bringing "down the regime." Meanwhile, 13 political prisoners have gone on hunger strikes in solidarity with the growing movement. The protests have gone on for 3 days already and have grown in size. As a result, the Syrian government has declared it will release 15 children from its prisons who were arrested for graffiti inspired by the Egyptian and Tunisian Revolutions.

It should be interesting to watch what happens as time goes on. I'll be keeping up on it!

With all that is going on, for some victory is sweet, for others sour. Regardless of what actually happens in many of these countries, I think that 2011 has certainly began on a truly history tone. Living through history is always exciting!

You can get all these page updates by "Liking" the Facebook blog page! here : http://on.fb.me/hWYYmi or by following me on Twitter! http://bit.ly/fIU3d7 Please Share on your network, email, comment or subscribe!

A MESSAGE FROM THE ORIGINAL PHASE 2

The late 1960s and early 70s ... burn baby burn. It seems appropriate, that during a time period of political debate, racially heated atmosphere and struggle, black and Latin power let their voices be heard. Writing became a voice of many of the youth in the inner cities of New York.
Philadelphia had its cool earls, Philadelphia phils, names of whichever rang a bell in New York City where the writer who made a name for himself like Comet, Ajax, or Mr. Clean, was a Greek kid named Demetreus who says he adapted the form after seeing the name Julio 224, on upper west sidestreets in his neighborhood.
The late 1960s and early 70s ... burn baby burn. It seems appropriate, that during a time period of political debate, racially heated atmosphere and struggle, black and Latin power let their voices be heard. Writing became a voice of many of the youth in the inner cities of New York.

Philadelphia had its cool earls, Philadelphia phils, names of whichever rang a bell in New York City where the writer who made a name for himself like Comet, Ajax, or Mr. Clean, was a Greek kid named Demetreus who says he adapted the form after seeing the name Julio 224, on upper west sidestreets in his neighborhood.
Adapting the moniker "Taki 183," and using a thick marker, "Taki," as he called himself, scribed his signature with a vengeance throughout New York City and the Tri-State making it part of his job as a messenger - thus becoming the culture's first official born icon and king.
In time, through influences such as his, writers became somewhat of a sport ... calling themselves "writers" and their signatures hits, they eventually moved the practice to New York City's underground subway system. Spray paint was introduced, they say, by a writer named R.A. 184, also of Manhattan. While in the meantime, Brooklyn was also making its mark while creating (as was Manhattan) a distinctive style of its own. Brooklyn's scribe seemed precision-cut and ornamented, adorning arrows and calligraphic swirls and neatly rendered letters. Undertaker Ash, The Last Survivors, Flowers Dice, App super . The latter two combing the named of two writers. While names like King of Kools and Fuzz or Dead, incorporated images as well as drew marker rendered letters to impact their names visual esthetic.
Manhattan's was a style - mixed with swerves and curves and traditional handwriting, its Js and Ts were often cropped by disconnected curls and combinations of letters that merged or force to represent underlines such as Cay and Spy 161's y's. The uniqueness of signatures or hits, as they called them, stood out amongst Frank 227, SJK177, Tan & 0202, 744, JOE 136, Jec Star and Junior 161 who were among the first kings of the first subway lines bombed (Manhattan 1, 3, A Lines). While Barbara and Eve 62 became the first female superstars, the ever-evident influence of mentors like Joe 182 and Babyface 86 was clear with its adorning crown still shown as more and more names appeared at a rapid pace.
Bombing the system did indeed seem to be the inner city youth's battle cry and with that, last but not least, the fever caught on. Amongst its very early writers, who combined their own styles were SLU II and El CID, followed by LEE 163d!, the Bronx first king, who along with Phase 2, set another unprecedented stage for bombing, where writers like Super Kool would catch on an take the trend to heights as yet to be known. Its early influences were Uncle Rich, Johnny 800, Pior 168, Lionel 168, Tracy 168, M&M 177, and a DJ known in the Bronx as Kool Herc who's face in the letters K-O-O-L changed about as much as his beats in a Jam.

Super Kool's summer of '72 brainstorm, forever changed the writers approach to writing. By placing his name on the side of the train in thick extra letters, the master piece was born and adapted by the entire writing movement, as was his next venture - a masterpiece that started at the top of the car to its bottom practically from one end to the other. He also introduced a spray cap which enabled one to fill in their pieces with more efficiency and also write their signatures large with less effort. With the culture ever evolving and adapting different paths to "Get Up," (have ones name in as many places as possible), the transformation of the letter as it was known, was taking place, bombing had to reckon with the style factor and concepts such as 3ds. At the same time while cars and scenic backgrounds came into the picture to compliment its most important element - the name - which in the light of respect, one seemed to cherish as they did life. Indeed. To go over one's name was indeed as if to break a law, which could result in the harshest of penalties. The name was one's honor, one's claim to existence, thus an area where violation was virtually intolerable.
From the early to mid 70s, writing now with a basic foundation, had more or less a blue print for up-and-comers seeking to fill its ranks. As time past into the later 70s and 80s, those picking up and taking on its trade continued metamorphosing the letter, defining style and continuing the evolution that's been a trademark of aerosol writing.
Hence forth in the 90s, the science of the letter and the sport of getting up/around remains as a forum for youth worldwide to adhere to and become practitioners in, which in itself, is a testament to its longevity and the strength of its existence, as a force to be recognized and reckoned with.
PEACE!!

U.N. Resolution 1970 AKA Sweet Justice

I am absolutely ecstatic at the news that the United Nations Security Council has passed draft resolution 1970 (2011) AKA SWEET JUSTICE. I'm usually not one to blog after breaking news because I prefer to provide analysis after seeing the effects of some event, however, this is different. I have been advocating for the implementation of a no-fly zone as well as different arms embargo in previous posts on the subject.

To read the resolution click here. It isn't very long, just 8 short pages and written in the typical UN resolution language. If you want to skip all the pre-ambulatory clauses just jump to page 3. I am very glad to see that, in the resolution, there is deep cooperation with the organizing nations and the League of Arab States. Most action taken are to be reported to both Secretary-Generals of the United Nations and the League.



Details of the Resolution: 

First, it establishes that protection of civilians is the NUMBER 1 goal of the resolution. It says that any nation should take all action  necessary to protect civilians excluding "a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory". I am very happy with that clause because it allows the international community to help level the playing field while not risking too much intervention by foreign countries.

Second, it establishes a no-fly zone where no plans are allowed in the air except those for humanitarian goals (which will be searched anyway). It also calls for any and all nations to provide assistance and do their part to enforce the ban. Furthermore, no nation can accept the flight of any planes with goals other than humanitarian ones into their airspace or territory that violates the provisions within Resolution 1970.

Third, and just as important, is the enforcement of an arms embargo toward the Libyan government.  It becomes the duty of all nations to ensure that they are not helping traffic any arms toward the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (Libya). They are to check their seaports, borders, etc. 

A very important provision is in clause 16 on page 4 that recognizes the use of armed mercenaries in the fighting and orders all nations to do their part to limit the transfer of armed personnel into Libya.

Fourth, a new but UN endorsed Asset Freeze of all assets of the Libyan government as well as officials within the territories of Member states. This would secure those assets for the Libyan people and away from their corrupt government.  There will also be a travel ban on most of the members of the Libyan government.

Finally, A "panel of experts" is going to be formed to analyze the measures taken in the operation (oversight committee).

All this on top of two envoys to Libya from the UN and League of Arab States to help end the fighting.

What is most important is that the resolution calls for a immediate ceasefire on all sides before the implementation of all these restrictions. It seems that European nations like France and England will lead the effort with the United States following close by. Massive celebration has been filmed in Benghazi as protesters' calls for a no-fly zone were finally answered.

Although he constantly seems like he has been snorting cocaine, Qaddafi is showing he is smarter than just a mad dictator. Hours after the passage of the resolution, he canceled his final push in Benghazi (rebel stronghold) and decided to just surround the city. Next the Libyan government (as I hear it from Al Jazeera Arabic) has declared a cease-fire on its side and is inviting envoys and the United Nations to see the "reality" on the ground. With no major effort on the side of the government, the justification for the for an attack on Libyan ground forces falls flat. France and England believe that the resolution allows member states to impose a no fly zone regardless of the status of a ceasefire. To catch the latest updates go to Al Jazeera's live 24/7 online stream.


I assume that the cease will not lead to long-term peace because rebels and protesters will refuse to make an agreement so long as Qaddafi is in power. This may give the ruler a more legitimate stance against the protesters, trying to convey himself as the peaceful missionary. I believe that will be the public image that the government tries to play until the international community's attention is elsewhere. Clashes have broken out in fledgling protests in Syria, a state of emergency declared in Bahrain and Yemen and foreign troops have helped crack down on Bahrain's major protests. Added to the disaster in Japan, it may not be long before the international community loses its attention span and looks elsewhere. For the Libyan people, let's hope that doesn't happen.

You can get all these page updates by "Liking" the Facebook blog page! here : http://on.fb.me/hWYYmi or by following me on Twitter! http://bit.ly/fIU3d7 Please Share on your network, email, comment or subscribe!

Bahrain Crackdown and the Media

While most of the world is concentrating on the devastation in Japan, many analysts have been worried that the divergence of attention will allow governments where the uprisings have begun to crack on protesters. This is extremely important because media coverage dictates the success of these uprisings.

In previous posts I have discussed the similarities between all these uprisings (and eventual revolutions). One that I have only briefly mentioned, but just as important, is media coverage of the movements. I strongly believe that without the world's eye fixed on a protest, they will be swept away by government forces. I remember watching a TED talk by an Al Jazeera correspondent that you can see here:

In it, he says that he was contacted by protesters in Egypt who told him, "Please keep the cameras on" because if they were shut off, they would all be killed. Thankfully the cameras weren't turned off, instead, Al Jazeera started a live 24/7 feed of the Square. Weeks later the protesters were successful. 

With the world's eyes watching Japan, this is what we see in Bahrain: 

This a day after the Kingdom declared a state of emergency as the armies of Saudi Arabia as well as neighboring states moved into the tiny kingdom to help "stabilize" the nation.

We must all keep this in mind: It is much harder for a government to crackdown on its people when a crowd is watching; with the millions around the world, it could be almost impossible. Japan is certainly in a state of crisis and needs it's attention, however, the future of these people and the people around them are heavily reliant on our attention (lets never forget that!).

Bahrain is a Kingdom ruled by a Sunni family with a population of majority Shia Muslims. This is a similar sectarian structure  that existed in pre- US invasion Iraq. The nation is filled with the circumstances for strife as Saudi troops in the country are seen as invading forces there to help support a Sunni government. The demands of the protesters are similar to other protests in the region: proper representation in government (some call for a constitutional monarchy, others for its complete abolition). Either way, the Sunni ruled nation would become a (rightfully) Shia represented one; with a natural ally to Iran. Which could cause problems for the United States, foreign policy wise. But for those pondering the decision and whom to support, is it really right to help support a government that restricts people's rights in the name of U.S. "interests?" (expect a blog post on that one!)

The primary concern has been in Libya as the dictator's army pushes through the country while forcing rebels back to the east of the country. Meanwhile, proponents of a no-fly zone are pointing out, that more than ever, a no fly zone is necessary to give the rebels a fighting chance. A strong push has begun for a vote at the highly biased UN Security Council to enforce the no-fly zone with countries like Russia and China the usual resistance demanding more questions about the policy be answered.

Meanwhile, the once described "freedom protest" have turned into "civil war." The United Nation is calling for an end to violence and the beginning of work toward reconciliation. Now, more than ever, it seems a crackdown of the protests are the solutions that these governments are resorting for. The world's reactions will determine if this will become the standard policy of all dictators to get by. If the world stands by and does nothing, the protesters will loose. If support is given, the lives of these people will change forever, and for the better. Fresh and unseen protests have just begun in Syria, so for the Syrians, past, current and future protesters, Let's hope countries chose the latter.

You can get all these page updates by "Liking" the Facebook blog page! here : http://on.fb.me/hWYYmi or by following me on Twitter! http://bit.ly/fIU3d7 Please Share on your network, email, comment or subscribe!

Fourteen people are to appear in the Nelson District Court tomorrow following a major police operation aimed at preventing the Red Devils increasing their foothold in Nelson.

Police dogged the movements of visiting Hells Angels and other motorcyclists on their Saturday poker run, sending a clear message that new gangs are not welcome in the Nelson region.

Following on from Friday's raids, which led to the arrest of all the key Nelson members of Hells Angel offshoot the Red Devils, police stuck close to the patched gang members, their associates and supporters on the organised ride, varying from 60 to about 100 riders at various stages.

They issued 43 infringement notices and green stickered eight bikes, meaning they could be ridden home but then have to be taken off the road.

Fourteen people will appear in court tomorrow, and three have been remanded in custody until April 1.

About 350 people attended a Fight Night at the Trafalgar Centre on Saturday night which police said did not result in any incidents requiring their intervention.

They said the Hells Angels left town yesterday morning to catch a Cook Strait ferry.

The poker run cost $20 to sign up for and the proceeds were destined to go to Nelson private sports medicine and ambulance company Medimax, operated by former St John officer Maxwell Clark.

The Nelson Mail was told that the organisers of the poker run – an event in which each rider draws a card at a series of stops to make up a poker hand, with the winning hand to receive $1000 – had all been locked up after the raids at the Red Devils' headquarters and many private homes, and that there was confusion around its staging.

But it went ahead, with riders and passengers getting a briefing from a patched Hells Angel at Isel Park in Stoke before they set off for Mapua soon after noon.

They were told to expect no tolerance from the police for any traffic violations and that they should not race to catch up with other riders, should stick with the pack and observe temporary speed limits around road works.

There was a heavy police presence at Isel Park, where Nelson Bays area commander Brian McGurk mingled with the gang members and other riders, attempting to converse with them.

Hells Angel patches were prominent, with about a dozen worn. There was one man wearing a Headhunters patch and one Hells Angel also wore a Nomads patch. No other gang insignia was obvious.

None of the gang members agreed to be interviewed but one Hells Angel spoken to briefly before the ride pointed out Mr McGurk and said the heavy policing was because "that man has an illness".

He questioned the cost of the large police exercise on Friday and of Saturday's policing, saying that the money would be better spent on helping Christchurch recover.

He also suggested that there were more disgraced police in prison than Hells Angels.

"We've got 30-odd members in New Zealand and only two of them are in jail at the moment," he said.

The group, which included many Nelson motorcyclists including eight of the Black Horse Social Motorcycle Group's 14 members, went first to Mapua and gathered at both the Grossi Point reserve and at the Golden Bear Brewing Company's bar. Some bought hot food from children conducting a Christchurch earthquake fundraiser beside the bar. Many police were evident in and around Mapua and on the roads.

The run left for Kaiteriteri at 2pm, arriving to find that police cars blocked access to the store, petrol pumps and motor camp.

It left for Motueka at 3pm, with the group splitting up to take several different roads. A large contingent headed for the Moutere Inn on the inland highway, but found "closed – private function" signs at the turnoff and carried on to Appleby.

Just over the Appleby Bridge and just before their destination, the Traveller's Rest hotel, they were greeted by a large number of police, including armed offenders squad members wearing sidearms, and put through a checkpoint where they were breath-tested and had their motorcycles inspected. There were 14 police cars, some unmarked, the booze bus and a paddy wagon at that point. As well as numerous patrols following the motorcycles and cars stationed at strategic intersections, several police photographers were in action throughout the afternoon.

One middle-aged Hells Angel wearing a "vice president" badge and clearly a senior figure said he would not be interviewed because he did not trust the media to fairly and accurately report what he said.

Jihad Emails: A Prequisite

Some time ago I had one of my readers (and friend)  suggest that I use this blog as an outlet to help curb mainstream perceptions about Islam. As time goes on, I find myself working to that end. Sometime this week, I'm going to be presenting to a classroom in my old high school about misconceptions of Islam and being Muslim American (When it happens I'll post about it). I'm also starting a Muslim Awareness initiative on my university campus that will roll out in the next month or two. It only seems natural to use this blog as another outlet to get out the message.

Admittedly, as you all know, I am no expert on Islam. I am no scholar, no Sheikh, and no historian. I am a practicing Muslim who looks at the world and my own religion critically when I see something wrong. This post was inspired by an email conversation I had with one of my readers about my Facebook status. My status said "Oh the misconceptions of Jihad..." When questioned about it, I sent him an email that began the emails titled "Jihad."

I want to present those emails in a series titled "Jihad Emails" because they address a lot of issues that some people tend to have with Islam. These emails have been stripped of any personally identifiable content as well as an personal messages that we sent (as friends). I've also made edits to grammar and sentence structure; as well as paraphrasing in some areas to save space. What is left is the lengthy and in depth discussion at its best. 

When asked what I meant by my status I began: 

One thing I’ve constantly recognized from this debate about Jihad (or any religious discussion) is that both non believers (and/or atheists) and extremists interpret the religion the same way. Atheists do so to denounce the “extremists” as evil and extremists do it to find justification for their attacks against Atheists (among others).

When he mentioned that many Muslims believed that Islam was a peaceful religion I continued: 

Muslims never shy away from the aggressive texts of the Quran, because they don’t have to. No Muslim that I’ve ever known has ignored the aggressive side of Islam and only dealt with the peaceful one, because without the two the religion isn’t what it is. Islam does condone violence in very particular instances. Otherwise peace and mercy are supreme. My status on Facebook was sparked by an article I read about how Jihad has been misconstrued today to justify the killings BETWEEN Muslims and between Non Muslims and Muslims, instead of being used for what it is meant to be used for: defense. This is the article:  http://islamopediaonline.com/editorials-and-analysis/debating-jihad-yoginder-sikand It was posted on Islamopedia, a website that my sister is a part of but it was extracted from another news source.

 (I would recommend reading the link from Islamopedia). I said this in reply to his statement that believers tend to have a biased view of their religion because they have been raised that way (which I generally agree with):

I don’t have a protective stance for my religion. I have to deal with Walter (an atheist friend) all the time and he’s constantly challenging my belief and all that. If I found something unreasonable in my religion I just don’t accept it because it is so. I like to think that I’m a reasonable follower, not a blind one.

I continued to talk about the structure of the Islamic Institutions:

 

 Islam, Islamic documents, edicts, and Sharia law are not stagnant. This is A HUGE misconception with most of the people in the world. They are constantly changing, being debated, and implemented based on different interpretations. Just keep that in mind as time goes by. :)
Furthermore, an important tenet in Islam is ijtihad, the duty of everyone to learn analyze and understand the texts on their own. In Islam interpretations and knowledge (even in the sciences) is promoted and not restricted.

As for a central tenet of Islam, prophetic messages are not restricted to the prophets mentioned in the Quran and some of the other texts. In fact, Muslims believe there have been thousands of prophets within their communities, but those in the holy books were either the most influential or powerful. -- this is what I was talking about when I mentioned learning about Islam from a Muslim than from Google or even a christian or a person of any faith. On this point, I can't defend any of the other Abrahamic faiths, as they can't defend mine and I wouldn't expect them to. Belief in faith and then defending it is more convincing and powerful than not.

Many people aren't recognizing that a religion isn't a solid block. It has nooks and crannies. It is beautiful in some parts and fucked up in others, they need to realize the complexity of the belief system. People think there are rules 1, 2, and 3. Anything that is slightly different isn't Islamic, and only those rules lead to "true" Islam. There are thousands of interpretations, teachings, edicts, and philosophies studied by hundreds of thousands of leaders, and billions of Muslims over its history. People are oversimplifying the people, belief system, and structure. Where you see a wooden plank, I see the Golden Gate Bridge.

As I've posted several times on this blog, I recommended a woman who gave a TED Talk some time ago, here she is:

What she learned was that most ideas of Islam are wrong (including many things you've said to me in the past), but she also said something extremely important: she was an outsider. With all her knowledge on it's history, reading 4 translations and even the 7th century Arabic Qur'an, she could not truly grasp it's power, passion and beauty on her own. She was limited in her knowledge of the belief system because she lacked it.

Then I talk about the nature of Islamic interpretation:

Given all that I’ve said, there are important implications: first, if every Muslim has a duty to interpret the Quran and Islamic teachings we establish that, to the ability and subjectivity of those interpretations, all are correct. In fact, Muslims believe that the only one who knows the “true” meaning of the Quran and Islam is Allah (I would say God, but the two aren’t linguistically equal, but they speak of the same being). Now, from an interpretation to interpretation basis, one holds their belief believing that the interpretations of others are wrong and so humans should try their best to interpret and apply Islam as they can best understand it (with good intentions).  So the extremist positions aren’t necessarily wrong from the Godly objective standard as they are from the subjective standard.

Likewise, the progressive interpretations aren’t necessarily right or wrong based on those same standards. We can only do our best to understand it, I  along with most others, have come to the conclusion that people like Osama bin Laden is wrong in his interpretation and we strongly believe that we are correct in our belief and will work on that, but that is only to our human ability to reason.  

 As you can tell, the issue of Jihad still hasn't been directly addressed. As the title implies, this is all you need to know before entering this discussion. I hadn't realized how long and in-depth these emails actually are. This post alone is just half of my first email to begin the conversation. There will be plenty more to come! Feel free to throw any of your comments about what's been said in the comments.

You can get all these page updates by "Liking" the Facebook blog page! here : http://on.fb.me/hWYYmi or by following me on Twitter! http://bit.ly/fIU3d7 Please Share on your network, email, comment or subscribe!