Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

Monday, February 9, 2009

Thursday, January 22, 2009

Do the Batik Walk, Mr. Obama

By Farish A. Noor

With the hopes of the world apparently pinned upon his shoulders, Barrack Obama will have a lot of things on his mind in the months and years to come for certain. The news that the interrogations at Guantanamo Bay might be suspended for a period of 120 days already sends out the right signals that the man intends to deliver upon his promises, and that cannot be a bad thing for anyone for what was promised was a new America that should play a humbler, moderating role in world affairs.

But let us be somewhat circumspect and realistic in our expectations for now. While many of us would like to see the man succeed, Barrack Obama is just another American President who has – for now – served us a tantalising wish-list that as sweet as it is appealing to many.

But we have also had our share of American Presidents who spoke at length about the promotion of human rights and democracy across the world, only to have our hopes dashed on the hard rocks of realpolitik when it became painfully evident that their focus was more on the Soviet bloc and the enemies of the United States.

Jimmy Carter got the ball rolling after the Helsinki accord of 1975 when he spoke of America’s mission to rid the world of authoritarianism and despotic rule; but it was the same administration that did little to help the people of Indonesia and the Philippines as they lived under the heels of two of the most corrupt and authoritarian pro-American despots, Ferdinand Marcos and General Suharto.

So let us see whether Obama can actually deliver on what he has promised, and let us keep our fingers crossed that he will not turn into another froth-producing American leader who is long on rhetoric but pitifully short on substance.

What can Obama do to improve the image of the United States overseas? Well, for a start he can start walking. American policy makers and congressmen and uniquely short of knowledge and first-hand experience of living abroad and the impression that I have been left with after every single encounter with an American politician is how ignorant they are about the world beyond their borders.

Obama, with his colourful past and unique family history, is in a position to play a singularly unique role by being both the President of the United States and the country’s best and most recognisable ambassador. All Mr Obama has to do is buy a batik shirt (a loose-fitting one from ebay will do) and do the Mandela walk. In the wake of his release from prison Nelson Mandela was perhaps the most famous and iconic emblem of the new post-apartheid era and most certainly the most famous South African who ever lived.

Barrack Obama can do the same thing for he enjoys one thing that no American President has ever had: instant recognition and appeal worldwide. In places like Indonesia he is loved by millions who claim his victory as their own; while across Africa, Latin America, Asia and the Arab world the very fact that an African-American has become the President of the USA has given succour to millions of poor, disenfranchised subaltern minorities to aim as high as well. It is not an underestimation or exaggeration to claim that Obama may even be more popular abroad than he is in his own country, and whatever his record may be in the future, he is for now the darling of many in the developing world.

Should that batik shirt arrive in the mail and should Mr Obama decide to wear it and do the Mandela walk abroad, he must try to convince the world that an America that can elect an African-American in its quest for change can also change for the better. Decades of misrule and violent unilateralism during the dark years of Bush senior and junior has done untold damage to the image and credibility of the USA as a superpower that presents itself as benign when its former ambassadors of goodwill came in the form of B-52 bombers and cruise missiles. And no, we do not believe the rhetoric of American Presidents who talk about human rights abroad while denying the same rights to prisoners at Guantanamo Bay or even American citizens themselves.

The use and abuse of the ‘war on terror’ rhetoric by the Bush Junior administration has allowed repressive governments worldwide to summarily arrest, detain, eliminate, erase and torture countless individuals who themselves were legitimate opposition politicians, activists, academics, journalists, students and citizens. During the Bush era all these human rights abuses across Asia, Africa and the Arab world were legitimised by pro-American governments that paid lip service to Bush’s war on terror while really using the campaign as a pretext for even more repression.

You may not realise this, Mr Obama, but the Guantanamo Bay prison complex and the Patriot Act that was passed by your predecessor was even used as an excuse and legitimation for detention without trial in countries like Malaysia, Indonesia, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and all across Africa and the Arab states. Now that you have set the example by halting the abuses that have been taking place at Guantanamo bay, can you please hop on the next flight to the countries allied to the USA and remind these dictators that the bad old days of torture and arbitrary arrests, detentions and extra-judicial killings have come to an end as well?

There is not guarantee that Obama will be able to undo the damage that has been done to America’s image thanks to the violent militaristic unilateralism of previous administrations; and not even any guarantee that he can bring about a reversal in the slide of the US economy. But if he can at least re-inject some degree of moral credibility and consistency in the ethical conduct of international politics and compel the allies of the USA to live up to the standards of ethical governance he wishes to provide to his fellow Americans, that would be good enough. So do the Mandela walk, Mr Obama, and walk the walk while talking the talk.

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Change Doesn’t Have to Take 400 Years to Happen

By Farish A. Noor

The electoral victory of Barack Obama as the new President of the United States of America is long overdue, and many of us are thankful for it. No, its not because the rest of us are racists who hate white men; and no, its not because we are captive to the essentialised idea that black Americans are all victims and are necessarily good and innocent, in toto. Its simply because change is refreshing and we believe that change is good and healthy for the nation and humanity in general.

I recall taking a flight from Frankfurt to Kuala Lumpur once, when the pilot spoke to the passengers before take off. Suddenly there was a collective gasp of surprise when we realised that our pilot was a woman! I was suddenly gripped by an overwhelming sense of relief and curious pride, for somewhere in my settled conscience the idea had been sedimented that all pilots (like all doctors, scientists and Presidents) had to be male. Throughout the flight I had to resist the temptation of bursting into the cockpit to congratulate her, and to tell her how proud I was to be flying in a plane piloted by a woman for a change. (Though of course because I am Muslim I would have been arrested immediately and handcuffed for fear of being a terrorist!)

That’s how change happens. It takes us by surprise and in a second its over and the historical moment has passed. But it requires that one vital element that makes change possible in the first place: human agency. There would not have been a woman pilot on my flight if this woman had not pursued her ambition to become a pilot relentlessly, never giving up on her dream despite the obstacles she may or may not have faced.

I am only raising this point now as I have noticed a rather disturbing, and potentially dangerous, narrative that has and is being spun in the wake of Obama’s victory. This is the narrative that the change that has come to the United States is due to the long historically determined and linear process of evolution; that we are told takes time, time and more time. We are fed the line that “Of course America has finally changed because it took four hundred years for black Americans to rise to where they are today.”

This sort of non-historical nonsense is served to us warmed up as a pseudo-scientific account of how and why historical progression needs to follow its own appointed destiny, and work within a fixed template that is set and determined in all cases. But this, the historian would like to add, is also utter nonsense.

The French lived under centuries of feudal rule by despotic Kings and Emperors like other Europeans, and for centuries they tried again and again to release themselves from the yoke of feudal domination. Until the time came when contingent historical factors occasioned a radical opening that allowed for revolutionary change at last. Likewise black Americans have been struggling against racism as soon as they were enslaved and brought to America in chains, and it wasn’t just yesterday that they realised that one of them could run for President.

For this reason we should not see Obama’s victory as a sudden and novel development of American society, but rather as one of those openings that allow for rupture from continuity and the historical progression of the same. Historical moments like these are always contingent, radical and unexpected, but they happen because there are human beings who exercise their free will and agency to will and fight for change; rather than to sit by and let history takes its course. History may always be a repetition of sameness, but historical moments take place when that sameness is challenged and successfully ruptured.

Therefore let us not swallow the silly argument that just because it took Americans 400 years to elect a black man as President every other country on the planet needs to wait 400 years before we can do the same too. No, change does not take 400 years to happen. In countries like Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia and others, change has been on the boil for some time now and there is ample evidence that the old crumbling structures of governments and institutionalised power are falling apart. Will Malaysians have to wait 400 years before they see a woman as Prime Minister? Or a Malaysian-minded Prime Minister who breaks away from the outdated structures of racialised politics? Will countries like Indonesia, Pakistan, India also have to wait 400 years before we see real change?

The narrative of history threads together elements of the same and the familiar to form a story that is consistent and intelligible, but the historian will tell you that history is replete with contingencies and ironies that broke the mould of the past and charted a new course for the future. For that reason, America’s success and Obama’s success should inspire us not to repeat history, but to go against it. Obama’s struggle against the tide of time makes him a man of our times; and let us hope that for so many other countries in Asia that same untimeliness will prevail as well. We can start by exercising our will for change, and by saying ‘No, we will not wait four hundred years before we dream of a better world today.’

Monday, November 10, 2008

What they're saying around the world!

Talk of the Nation becomes Talk of the World as listeners from around the globe weigh in on Barack Obama's historic victory in the 2008 presidential election.

Though commentary from around the world is largely supportive of the president-elect, Obama steps into the White House as the country wages two wars and faces a precarious international economy.

Listeners worldwide share their reactions to Obama's victory and talk about their hopes and anxieties for the future.

Click here to read the full story.

Barack's step-grandmother Sarah Obama in Kogelo, Kenya

At Obama's former school in Jakarta, Indonesia

Manila, the Philippines

Shanghai

Athens, Greece

Jakarta, Indonesia

Jerusalem, Israel

Sydney, Australia

Afghanistan

Japan

India

Paris, France

Dakar, Senegal

London
















Saturday, November 8, 2008

Vote for Barack Obama

Q. Why will Jimmy Carter vote for Barack Obama?
A. Because Jimmy doesn't want to be the worst President in history.

Q. Why will Senator Hillary Clinton vote for Barack Obama?
A. Because he stole the primary election fair and square.

Q. Why will Jane Fonda vote for Barack Obama?
A. Because Ho Chi Minh is dead.

Q. Why will Ho Chi Minh vote for Barack Obama?
A. Because Ho Chi Minh is dead.

Q. Why will Jay Leno vote for Barack Obama?
A. Because he's running out of George Bush jokes.

Q. Why will David Letterman vote for Barack Obama?
A. Because he's running out of Jay Leno's George Bush jokes.

Q. Why will Britney Spears vote for Barack Obama?
A. Because she's running out of other crazy things to do.

Q. Why will Senator Ted Kennedy vote for Barack Obama?
A. Brain tumor.

Q. Will Senator Larry Craig vote for Barack Obama?
A. He'll stall first.

Q. How will Osama Bin Laden vote for Barack Obama?
A. Absentee ballot.

Q. Why will Bill Ayers vote for Barack Obama?
A. Bill thinks Obama's the bomb.

Q. Why will sharks vote for Barack Obama?
A. Professional courtesy.

Popular Barack Obama Jokes

Q. Why won’t Obama laugh at himself?
A. Because it would be racist.

Q. How can you tell when Obama has been smoking dope?
A. He answers the door when the phone rings.

Q. Why did Obama think that he had campaigned in 57 states?
A. His heavy pot use has left him a brownie short of a full pan.

Like any experienced Chicago politician, Obama would go the cemetary to register voters. One night he came across a grave so old and worn that he couldn't make out the name on the tombstone. The staffer holding the flashlight got impatient and suggested they just move on to the next plot. Obama angrily exclaimed, "This person has a much right to vote as anyone else here!"

Bill Clinton said, “I didn’t inhale.”
Barack Obama says, “I didn’t inject.”

Richard Nixon said “I am not a crook!”
Barack Obama says “I am not on crack!”

Harry Truman said, “The buck stops here!”
Barack Obama says, “Leave the bucks here!”

Q. What’s the difference between Ross Perot and Barack Obama?
A. Ross Perot is crackpot with big ears; Barack Obama is a pothead with big ears.

Anagrams
President Barack Obama = Arab base, pink Democrat
President Barack Hussein Obama = A Democrat speaks inane rubbish

Q. What do Obama and Osama have in common?
A. They both have friends who bombed the Pentagon.

Q. Why doesn’t Barack drink Pepsi?
A. He thinks that things go better with coke.

Q. Why wouldn’t Barack salute the American flag?
A. It was ours.

Q. Why did Obama change his name from Barry to Barack?
A. He thought Barry sounded too American.

Q: What do you get when you cross a crooked politician with a crooked lawyer?
A: Barack Obama.

Working people frequently ask retired people what they do to make their days interesting. Well, for example, the other day I went downtown and into a shop. I was only there for about 5 minutes, and when I came out, there was a cop writing out a parking ticket. I said to him, 'Come on, man, how about giving a retired person a break'? He ignored me and continued writing the ticket. I called him a 'Nazi.' He glared at me and wrote another ticket for having worn tires. So I called him a 'doughnut eating Gestapo.' He finished the second ticket and put it on the windshield with the first. Then he wrote a third ticket. This went on for about 20 minutes. The more I abused him the more tickets he wrote. Personally, I didn't care. I came downtown on the bus, and the car that he was putting the tickets on had a bumper sticker that said, 'Obama in '08 .' I try to have a little fun each day now that I'm retired. It's important to my health.

Racist Jokes about Obama

1. If you have ever chuckled at his middle name, you may be guilty of racist Obama jokes.

2. If you ever ridiculed the assertion that tire gauges lower gas prices, you may be guilty of racist Obama jokes.

3. If you ever laughed at the claim that he campaigned in 57 states, you may be guilty of racist Obama jokes.

4. If you ever suggested that the "Vero Possemus" campaign signs had something to do with possums, you may be guilty of racist Obama jokes.

5. If you ever downloaded the video of him bowling a 37 in front of reporters, you may be guilty of racist Obama jokes.

6. If you ever shared the video comparing him to Paris Hilton, you may be guilty of racist Obama jokes.

7. If you ever cracked wise about his cocaine use, you may be guilty of racist Obama jokes. (Joking about Dubya's alleged cocaine use is politically correct.)

8. If you ever made fun of his big ears, you may be guilty of racist Obama jokes. (Joking about Perot's big ears is politically correct.)

9. If you ever said that the look on his wife's face could curdle fresh milk, you may be guilty of racist Obama jokes. (Joking about Cindy McCain's face is politically correct.)

10. If you ever noted that his pastor acted like he was on Def Comedy Jam, you may be guilty of racist Obama jokes.

Obama, McCain and All Hillary Die And Go To Heaven

John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama all die and go to heaven. God looks down from his throne and asks McCain, “Do you think you deserve to be in heaven?”

McCain takes a breath and then replies, “Well, I think so because I was a great leader and tried to follow the words in your great book.” God looks down and then says, “You can sit to my left side.”

So, McCain takes his seat and then God asks the same question to Hillary, “Do you think you deserve to be in heaven?” Hillary thinks for a second and then replies, “I think so because I have been fighting for the rights of so many people for so long.” God again looks down and this time says, “You can sit to my right side.”

Finally God turns to Barack Obama and asks, “Do you think you deserve to be in heaven?” Obama smiled and replied, “I think you’re in my seat.”

A Closing Note From Jay Leno

“Barack Obama gave a big speech on race, and there was one heckler in the audience, kept screaming crazy stuff the whole time. Turns out it was his pastor.”

Friday, November 7, 2008

是谁造就奥巴马?

奶茶 | 11月7日 傍晚6点49分

世界人民可能还没有平复下来,因为奥巴马带来了的难得的激情!笔者研究了许多历史事故,对奥巴马的胜利,到底是谁?造成这次国际惊讶不已的历史时刻!

伟大总统

咱 们不能不说这位伟大的领袖,美国第16任总统亚伯拉罕。林肯,他最大的成就是废除奴隶制度!林肯代表的北方工业派系主张废除奴隶制度,但由于南方经济对奴 隶的依赖很高,造成了对立的局面,而林肯就职那天,却引发了美国开国以来最严重的南北战争,为了公民正义,为了结束对立及分裂,林肯断然开启第一枪,进攻 反叛的南方州属!结果却用了双方战费消耗150亿美元,北军伤亡63万人,南军伤亡48万人的惨痛代价!

如果说林肯为了避免国家分裂来打 这场战事!倒不如说是维护国家的均衡发展为起点!北方及南方的根源,来自经济结构的分别!林肯果断的意识到国家的前进都能有不均衡的政策,所以废除奴隶制 度,就是关键性的一步!而战争也是政治斡旋后的最后及最坏的选择!多年以来人民对林肯总统的前瞻性及坚韧不拔的做为,无不欢呼着真正民主社会,来自这位木 纳,样子丑陋但公义的总统!

激情领袖

“我有一个梦”演说者,美国民权领袖马丁·路德·金!

这位被列为美国的纪念日但不是总统级的人物,确实为少数族群解开肤色枷锁!部分“我有一个梦”的精彩论点!

* 就某种意义而言,今天我们是为了要求兑现诺言而汇集到我们国家的首都来的。我们共和国的缔造者草拟宪法和独立宣言的气壮山河的词句时,曾向每一个 美国人许下了诺言,他们承诺给予所有的人以生存、自由和追求幸福的不可剥夺的权利。就有色公民而论,美国显然没有实践她的诺言。美国没有履行这项神圣的义 务,只是给黑人开了一张空头支票,支票上盖着“资金不足”的戳子后便退了回来。但是我们不相信正义的银行已经破产,我们不相信,在这个国家巨大的机会之库 里已没有足够的储备。因此今天我们要求将支票兑现——这张支票将给予我们宝贵的自由和正义的保障。

* 我梦想有一天,这个国家会站立起来,真正实现其信条的真谛:“我们认为这些真理是不言而喻的,人人生而平等。”

* 我梦想有一天,我的四个孩子将在一个不是以他们的肤色,而是以他们的品格优劣来评价他们的国度里生活。我今天有一个梦想!

* 当我们让自由之声响起来,让自由之声从每一个大小村庄、每一个州和每一个城市响起来时,我们将能够加速这一天的到来,那时,上帝的所有儿女,黑人 和白人,犹太教徒和非犹太教徒,耶稣教徒和天主教徒,都将手携手,合唱一首古老的黑人灵歌:“终于自由啦!终于自由啦!感谢全能的上帝,我们终于自由 啦!”

愚蠢总统

布什当选美国历史上第五位最愚蠢的总统!确实如此!由911事件独揽大权,到今时今日的将总统大位,政府及国会的权利,完全扶手让出!布什总统的单边主义,背弃了过去的盟友,也背弃了期待改变的人民心声!

对经济,国家外交及环保课题,布什政府的保守,维护财团利益,及漠视民意的自以为是政策,导致共和党的势力全线崩毁,所谓:物极必反吧!

人民思变

2008 总统大选前夕民调显示,人民最关心是经济课题!许多评论员预测美国可能会面对比上世纪20年代的经济大萧条来得严重的后果!美国社会的超前消费导致恶果循 环,及美国借贷的松弛制度,引发了这世纪来,最糟糕的经济风暴!美国外债已经达到1万亿美金!布什政府对救市的方案却引发争议,被认为是挽救贪婪自私的华 尔街财团,而确实布什真的没什么法宝可以让经济回复,因为美国面对结构性的问题,再说布什也没什么时间了!

所以美国民众希望能有一位没有政治包袱的总统,来收拾烂摊子!

综 合了以上分析,奥巴马的总统之梦,不是一朝一夕的幻影!而是累积了林肯的废除奴隶制度播种,再由马丁·路德·金的重新规划,由布什的灌溉,再由美国民众收 割!简单的说,林肯的公义,马丁·路德·金的无私,布什的无能,加上民众的期待!造就了奥巴马的总统之梦!奥巴马也是时势造英雄的胜利者!

Thursday, November 6, 2008

Breaking News!!

They are replacing the Statue of Liberty
with Aunt Jemima holding a bucket of fried chicken.
Also, in the White House they are replacing the rose garden
with a watermelon patch.

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

A New America? Let's Shut Down Guantanamo First! Please......

By Farish A. Noor

Needless to say, the news that Barrack Obama has become the new President of the United States of America has spread worldwide and already the world rejoices over the timely demise of the Neo-Con empire of Bush and company. In Asia in particular the news of Obama’s victory has been greeted with a collective sigh of relief, and genuine jubilation in places like Indonesia for the Indonesians have claimed Obama as one of their own, no less. Time will tell if this historic sea change in American politics is indeed historic, but for now we can at least recover some meaningful respite from the simple fact that momentarily at least America’s vast arsenal of destruction has been laid to rest. But for how long?

Obama’s campaign was, from the outset, driven by a simple message that nonetheless resonated with a vast cross-section of American society: The time has come for change. The old crumbling power structures that has for so long been dominated by the same incestuous community of white, upper middle class, elite men whose genealogies date back to the founding fathers of America seems to have been opened up for a while, allowing for this rupture in the collective imaginary of the American people and forcing all of us to question some of the settled assumptions that have guided our understanding of America for perhaps too long.

But before we all don our rose-tinted glasses and celebrate a second Woodstock, let us pause for a moment and consider the hurdles and obstacles that will have to be overcome by Obama and the American people before we can utter the phrase ‘change has come’ with due and warranted confidence. Those of us who reside in Asia would have our own set of questions that ought to be put before the latest resident of the White House, and there are lingering dilemmas and quandries that need to be laid to rest before we herald the coming of a new order.

For a start, let us begin with the claim that the victory of Obama will lead to a new America, one that is confident and strong. Obama’s promise was to restore to America and Americans the sense of pride that was severely compromised during the Bush years and to recover much of the credibility and standing that America has lost since the fateful invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Now to this question we pose the following: If America’s pride and dignity are indeed to be restored, then how? A strong America is not necessarily a bad thing, and even worse would be the prospect of an America falling apart at the seams and sending debris all over the world. But for too long, America’s political elite have understood this grand project in terms that were decidedly militarist and hegemonic. A strong America need not and should not be understood as a licence for greater American hegemonic influence, and certainly not greater military clout and beligerent prowess. This was precisely the fatal error of successive American governments beginning with the Reagan administration that sought to restore American pride following the country’s graceless exit from Vietnam in 1975. Yes, we welcome a strong America that is grounded on universalist principles, but no, we do not welcome a strong America that arrives on our shores with humvees, stinger missiles and B-52s. (And lest we forget, B-52s do not make good ambassadors of goodwill.)

Related to this is the question of America’s moral standing and its moral credibility today, which is at an all time low. Mr Obama has reiterated his claim that he will seek to restore the image and moral credibility of the United States in the eyes of the world, but let this not be a vain boast for the sake of posturing and political correctness. America has been using human rights and the promotion of democracy as a bargaining chip since the time of the Helsinki accord at the peak of the Cold War, and the Carter administration was keen to highlight the human rights abuses of other countries then, provided they were all in the Soviet bloc or showed signs of harbouring pro-Leftist sympathies. During this period, both Democratic and Republican administrations paid scant attention to the horrendous human rights abuses that were taking place in countries that were firmly allied to American interests, ranging from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel to Indonesia and the Philippines.

No, Mr Obama, we will not take seriously your claims to defend fundamental liberties unless and until you personally see to it that institutions such as the prison at Guantanamo Bay are shut down during your watch. (And dont wait 4 years to do it, or you may end up like the incumbent leader of Malaysia who was also known to have waited too long before attempting his reforms). Only then can America preach human rights with confidence and credibility, and when doing so please focus your attention on those countries most closely allied to your own American concerns too.

Mr Obama would also do well to relieve us Asians of the blight and burden of being designated as the ‘Second Front in the War on Terror’. During the cold war, Southeast Asia was likewise called the second front in the ‘war on Communism’, and the net result of this was the promotion of military dictatorships, the use of draconian laws, the wanton murder, torture and incarceration of millions of innocent Asians deemed dangerous due to their Leftist sympathies, and the annexation of East Timor that took place under the nose of Washington. Mr Obama should realise that the War On Terror has been nothing more than a blanket excuse used by the governments of Southeast Asia to curry favour with Washington, and to build a vast network of anti-terror centres, prisons, detention facilities and to further perpetuate antiquated colonial laws used to detain even more Asians, ostensibly to protect Americans and American foreign interests. To expose the anti-terror scam for what it is, that is nothing more than an elaborate fiction and lie that serves the economic interests of repressive regimes, arms companies and the security industry would not only raise the image of the America that Mr Obama wants to save, but also prove to us that America may still be able to redeem itself.

Thus for all these reasons, we hope and pray that that America under its new President with prosper; but let it prosper with the world and not against it. American strength and pride should never be at the cost of the weakness and humiliation of other nations. I know you are not personally responsible for what your successors have done Mr Obama, but for your sake and the world’s I and many others hope you succeed. God bless.

少数民族成功当选美总统; 阿都拉:马来西亚也可以

李伟伦与郭史光庆 | 11月5日 傍晚7点44分

abdullah pc on obama 051108 01对于美国选出有史以来的首位黑人总统奥巴马,显示该国人民不分肤色选贤与能,首相阿都拉(左图)认为,马来西亚也可以出现同样的情况,这完全取决于人民的民主选择。

“这能够在任何地方发生,取决于人民的决定。今天发生在美国的事情不是由华盛顿或其他人士决定,而是由美国人民本身所决定,通过民主与选举程序做出他们的选择。”

他是今日傍晚在国会首相办公室召开记者会恭贺奥巴马当选美国总统的记者会上,受询及美国人不分种族肤色选出一名黑人总统,这个情况是否会在马来西亚出现时,这么回答。

冀奥巴马立即应对经济危机

democrat american election obama 070108 03除了恭贺奥巴马(右图)当选美国第44届总统之外,阿都拉也指出,全世界都对奥巴马抱有很高的期望,希望他能够解决全球当前所面对的问题,尤其是源自美国的全球经济危机,应该是奥巴马上任后的当务之急。

他也希望奥巴马立即正视与解决伊莱克、阿富汗、巴勒斯坦与伊朗目前的问题,为这些国家带来正面的发展。他促请奥巴马公平对待穆斯林国家,不能只袒护某一方。

受询及奥巴马是否能与穆斯林国家展开合作,阿都拉回答,“如果他要这么做,他一定做得到,我相信他会这么做”。

Thursday, October 30, 2008

Obama's prime-time ad skips over budget realities

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Income Redistribution

Redistribution Plan may take a while to catch on

Yesterday on my way to lunch, I passed one of the homeless guys in the area, with a sign that read 'Vote Obama, I need the money.'

Once in the restaurant my waiter had on an 'Obama 08' tee shirt.

When the bill came, I decided not to tip the waiter and explained to him while he had given me exceptional service, that his tee shirt made me feel he obviously believes in Senator Obama's plan to redistribute the wealth. I told him I was going to redistribute his tip to someone that I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. He stood there in disbelief and angrily stormed away.

I went outside, gave the homeless guy $3 and told him to thank the waiter inside, as I had decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy looked at me in disbelief but seemed grateful.

As I got in my car, I realized this rather unscientific redistribution experiment had left the homeless guy quite happy for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn.

Well, I guess this redistribution of wealth is going to take a while to catch on with those doing the work.

Thursday, October 16, 2008

University President Warns of Loss of Intellectual and Religious Freedom and Numerous College Closures

Oklahoma Wesleyan University President, Dr. Everett Piper, is speaking out about Presidential candidate Barack Obama's statements regarding staffing practices for faith-based organizations. "I am very concerned" says Piper. "Senator Obama's statements that appear on his campaign's web page, as well as, those spoken at the Saddleback Civil Forum and his July 1 speech in Ohio, should cause all universities that are Christian in faith and practice to be concerned for their very existence."

"The issue is one of freedom of association in staffing" Piper states. "Since the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, all faith-based colleges and universities have had a religious exemption when it comes to hiring faculty and staff." Piper goes further: "By definition an Evangelical college has always had the right to expect its teachers to be Evangelical, a Jewish college could hire only those who are Jewish, a Catholic school could require its faculty to be Catholic and so on. This has been common sense and common practice. The logical privilege and legal right of a school to refuse employment to those who hold views antithetical to the institution - to its ideological, theological, and historical moorings - to its very mission statement and reason for existence - has been a given. It would be absurd to force a Jewish school, for example, to hire an advocate of Al Qaeda ideology. Students and parents choosing such a school would assume that, by definition, they would not have someone teaching such a worldview."

Piper says his concerns stem directly from Obama's own words. "In Obama's July 1, 2008 speech in Ohio the Senator contends that if an organization benefits from federal grants it can't make any staffing or hiring decisions 'on the basis of religion.' Furthermore, on his official campaign web page Barack Obama clarifies that under his presidency 'religious organizations that receive federal dollars cannot discriminate with respect to hiring for government-funded social service programs; and [faith-based organizations] can only use taxpayer's dollars on secular programs and initiatives.' Finally, in the Saddleback Civil Forum with Rick Warren, Obama commented specifically on Christian colleges and said 'When it comes to the programs that are federally funded, then we do have to be careful to make sure that we are not creating a situation where people are being discriminated against [in hiring practices].'" Piper says the problem in Obama's statements is this: "Almost every college in the nation - religious or secular - has students who qualify for and receive federal funds in the form of grants, loans, and scholarships. Students have always been able to use these dollars to go to the college of their choice. But Obama's position clearly indicates that this freedom could be in jeopardy and that students may only be able to use such grants and loans to attend schools that are secular in their worldview and behavioral codes." Piper goes further: "My question is this (and Senator Obama does not provide an answer): Will students be prohibited by law from using their financial aid to attend any school that hires faculty in a manner that is consistent with its Christian faith, values and theological distinctions? Will the funding that flows from the student to the institution - funding that has been available since the GI Bill of the 1940s - be averted? Will students lose their ability to attend a Christian college and will the colleges by default lose a primary source of revenue?" "If so" says Piper "hundreds of colleges and universities across the land would be forced into immediate financial exigency and imminent closure."

Piper summarizes by saying "As far as I can tell, this conversation at this level is unprecedented. At no time in our history has the religious and intellectual freedom of the academy been held up to such ambiguity. Does it really make any sense to require Christian organizations to hire those who explicitly deny Christian orthodoxy and explicitly violate Christian orthopraxy?"

Oklahoma Wesleyan University is a Christian liberal arts university recognized by U.S. News and World Report and Forbes.com for its excellence. Its mission statement calls for the integration of faith, learning, and living in all disciplines with the Primacy of Jesus Christ, the Priority of Scripture, the Pursuit of Truth, and the Practice of Wisdom as the University's distinct foundation. For more information on Oklahoma Wesleyan or Dr. Piper go to www.okwu.edu or call 918.335.6234.