Amin al-Ansari: Scholar‏

Your downer of the day

Warning: Very Disturbing Images



Is it a bit disingenuous of me to post something like this and claim that al-Ansari's "scholarly" take is an accepted version of history and his views representative of widely-held opinions in a certain part of the globe? Fair enough, I won't make that claim.

What do I suspect, however, is that this particular "interpretation" of history is common and accepted at least enough to be broadcast on television in an authoritarian state. Res ipsa loquitur, right?

Given the brain-melting historical revisionism by a cleric who I can only presume is marginally acceptable to his viewers as an authority on his religion (would he be on TV otherwise?), if not on the perfidies of the Jews, I can only conclude that those idealistic naifs who think peace in the Middle East is within reach will inevitably realize they have an Everest of ignorance and hatred to conquer before it even becomes a remote possibility.

After all, this is no "man on the street" interview with a crackpot bigot, or truther conspiracy web-based video nonsense. This is a TV host in the studio of a publicly broadcast channel educating his viewers --you know, just like over here, with Oprah and all the other celebrities telling us what to read and how to vote!

If viewers over there accept that what this guy tells them is the truth (like middle class ladies eat up Oprah), how could they ever contemplate peace with the state --or should I say "entity", of their avowed and implacable foe?

As long as this is the type of "history" being peddled and accepted at face value in certain parts of the world, peace is not within reach.

I'm not "hopeful"

Barack Obama, Right-winger

Lorrie Goldstein of the Ottawa Sun imagines what it would be like if the new U.S. President got the kind of coverage in Canada usually reserved for politicians with his positions:

Barack Obama was sworn in as the 44th president of the United States on Tuesday, an ideological neo-conservative irresponsibly poised to introduce broad based, middle-class tax cuts, despite a huge and growing U.S. deficit and global recession.

Obama's fiscally reckless promises of $275 billion in tax cuts this year, and $2.9 trillion over the next decade, will condemn the U.S. to years of structural deficits, for which future generations will have to pay, say leading economists.

Boasting on the official White House website that his massive tax giveaway will result in a $3,700 tax cut for a married couple earning $75,000 with two children, one in college, Obama ignored the devastating impact such policies, designed mainly for short-term political gain, will have on future generations and on government programs Americans hold dear, such as social security.

Sadly, thoughtful observers aren't surprised by this latest move by Obama, whom some have already dubbed "George Bush Lite."

This, given Obama's support for everything from escalating Bush's disastrous "war on terrorism" in Afghanistan, to his support for capital punishment, to his insistence so-called "clean coal" technology can be part of America's solution to combating global warming.

Indeed, "clean coal" is a major element in Obama's suspect promise to significantly reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, a plan that at best, according to leading environmentalists, will continue to fall far short of the Kyoto Accord, thus shaming America before the global community.

Then again, what else can be expected of a former state senator from coal-rich Illinois, who once voted in favour of a bill condemning Kyoto and prohibiting the state from regulating greenhouse gases, at the urging of that state's powerful coal lobby?

Meanwhile, Obama's knee-jerk support for Israel in its latest confrontation with Hamas, lacked the nuance required of a statesman seeking the role of honest broker in the Mideast.

Instead, Obama delivered a harsh, uncompromising message to the Arab and Muslim worlds last week, through his secretary of state designate, Hillary Clinton.

Making it clear she was also speaking for Obama, Clinton pointedly told her Senate confirmation hearing: "We cannot negotiate with Hamas until it renounces violence, recognizes Israel and agrees to abide by past agreements ... The president-elect and I understand and are deeply sympathetic to Israel's desire to defend itself under the current conditions and to be free of shelling by Hamas rockets."

Where, one must ask, was a similar expression of concern for Palestinian lives, raising fears Obama may be pandering for support from the well-organized, influential and well-financed pro-Israel lobby in the U.S.?

All this, plus Obama's hurtful remarks during his 2004 U.S. Senate campaign in Illinois that while he supported civil unions for homosexuals, he could not endorse same-sex marriages because, "I'm a Christian," have raised fears progressive forces in the U.S. will find themselves under assault for the next four years of Obama's administration.

Indeed, while Obama has publicly toned down and even modified some of his more controversial views over the years, many worry this may all be part of his "hidden agenda" to impose his values on Americans over the long term.

On the other hand, he ain't right wing on every issue. Reading this BBC piece on the Vatican's early criticism of the Obama administration reminded me that I had seen a pretty clever ad recently:



Whatever your position on the issue, it's a thought-provoking spot.