NOBEL PEACE PRIZE – MEDIA GETS ITSELF CONFUSED AND AGENDAS TAKE OVER THE SIMPLE TRUTH

Today’s news from the Norwegian based Nobel Prize Committee that US President Barrack Obama won the Peace Prize was certainly a surprise to most, probably to Obama most of all. The reasons for giving the Prize for the media even more so, well it must be – simply because as the journalists, pundits, politicians and political commentators are making their views known – they are getting it all wrong. Why?

Some are predictable of course; a Republican Party politician played his rather sleazy hit on one part of the President’s acknowledgement of the honor and carefully avoiding the points given altogether. The President said he did not consider himself deserved of being put amongst the names of other Nobel Laureates - the sleazy comment was that “he acknowledges that he did not deserve it”. What a great example of how low political point-scoring will go.

But what surprises me is how the media is stuck on the word ‘accomplishments’ and ‘achievements’ and cannot accept that the Nobel Committee used the word “vision” and that under the guidelines and aspirations of that Committee, the President deserved and merited the prize.

Readers will know that I stay away from and have no opinion on domestic US politics, and thus am neither pro-Republican nor pro-Democrat. I am after all neither American nor do I live there. I have expressed, though, my support for Obama’s (and his Administration’s) recognition, vision for change and understanding of the correct place that the US and West has in the make up of this world. It is because of this vision for change and the forcing of a great u-turn in returning not only the US but the world back to constructive engagement that the Noble Committee has chosen President Obama as its laureate.

The arrival of Obama on the seen simply altered everything, particularly the eight years of stubborn, hawkish and self-centered Bush doctrine. It is not simply that the US became the obstinate, hard smacking, go-it-alone nation that disregarded the views of others’ during that period; it was that it had cemented a 30-year-long confusion in global-diplomatic-direction that started with the Iranian Revolution, oil crises and a dying cold-war. It needed the single survivor of the Cold-War super-powers to come on board with the desperate and tireless pleadings of professional diplomats everywhere. It certainly is only the beginning, and reform in the way nations deal with each other and the management of international institutions is still very lacking.

Considering that there are two major conflict zones in the world, global economic chaos, wide-spread religious and political radicalism as well as a multitude of other concerns, this change of direction is not only and important beginning, but in fact a globally critical move.

The media, however, is unable to fathom this at this early stage and as I write this note, the BBC, Al Jazeera and CNN are still asking “experts” and others what has the Obama Administration “achieved” and “accomplished” to merit this award. I do not understand why is the BBC commentator talking about not having Guantanamo Bay closed as yet being a non-achievement – it is not the point nor is it relevant. Good Morning America and the BBC both started their opening news item as “within only nine months in office”. They also did not get the point. It is the overall vision or should we say recognition - the speech in Cairo, the example of reaching out to the non-Western world as equals, drawing the line between how countries can deal with each other over issues, being united in standards such as non-proliferation, drawing the line with issues like climate change.

Certainly the motive and granting of this prize is both symbolic and as only a few have gathered, it is also there to motivate. As Obama put it, a “call to action”, or better put the Noble Committee said he received it for what he stood for. It is not Obama that won the prize; it is the vision that he and others of his ilk, that won it.

As an American President and his value and success domestically, I know not, that is perhaps something that needs to be judged on achievements and there is something to say about how he deals with the international issue and justifying his leadership as a Commander in Chief, but that is another issue and should never be confused to why he was awarded the Noble Peace Prize.

UPDATE - WERNER CRACKS UP A BIT.....MORE

Has Werner, aka the Sheik, gone even a bit more radical than usual?

Perhaps knowing he has been properly exposed and does not allow any postings from a Moroccan ISP to avoid my reminding people who and what he really is, has made him a bit ....... annoyed.

His posting style has changed and is certainly more aggressive and frankly more ludicrous.

In a posting with a photo showing the US President meeting on AF1 with his top General managing the war in Afghanistan, Werner makes the comments that it is despicable that he was given 25 minutes with the President.

What is despicable is the fact that Werner, presuming there is some semblance of intelligence with the man from tropical Queensland's Cairns, that he very well knows from basic news watching that Obama two days before and on a regular bi-weekly basis has a 3 hour video conference with the General and his main staff along with all the Chiefs and experts back in Washington. We know that Werner Reimann is far-right, but in this case he may have fell over.

Another interesting thing, from the Kahane supporting radical Jew who professes on a number of times that he knows more than any Imam or other Muslim scholar on the subject of Islam and the history of Muslims, that he is unable to distinguish between the differences of the Hagia Sophia Cathedral of Byzantium that became the Aya Sofia Mosque in Istanbul and he called it The Blue Mosque. I thought perhaps that it was a simple accident but actually no, considering he went to great lengths to criticise the minarets and basically condemn it as a bastion of some pro-Sharia, Caliphate symbol. For such an "expert", we can assume then that it is all a deliberate lie, because any research or basic knowledge will come out with the fact that the Mosque/Cathedral was closed as a place of worship and has been a Museum to the City's great history and the two religions for many, many years now. The Blue Mosque is the city's principle Mosque and well known for its "state supporting" moderates. So, did Werner lie or was he just producing more and more foolish bullshit?

.

To be honest, he is a liar for his known agenda. On the above issue that was about bashing Turkey in any format possible he states that country has been put on the Watch List of U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom or USCIRF. Now, notwithstanding the fact that Turkey was put on the list and has been not allowing religious freedoms of certain groups, the fact is that Werner Reimann avoids pointing out that of the 12 countries on this Watch List, six are Muslim and six are not. Here is the item from the USCIRF website set below:

USCIRF Watch List

In addition to its CPC recommendations, the Commission has established a Watch List of countries where religious freedom conditions do not rise to the statutory level requiring CPC designation but which require close monitoring due to the nature and extent of violations of religious freedom engaged in or tolerated by the governments.

Afghanistan, Belarus, Cuba, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Laos, Russia, Somalia, Tajikistan, Turkey & Venezuela

I was pulling the plug on watching Werner's blog because of its basic Kahanist propaganda, but now it has become rather an interesting exercise in desperate actions of a madman exposed.

.........

UPDATE Oct 8.

Werner Reimann puts in his blog an item/comment by Jordan's King Abdullah that unilateral action by Israel could ignite a tinderbox in Jerusalem. A logical comment from someone who is up-to-date on the issue.

What does Werner comment - "no Arabs - no tinderbox".

Just more confirmation that Werner Reimann is in fact a violent-supporting radical of the same ilk as - Kahane, Bin Laden, Hitler and Stalin. We can all be thankfull that the businessman from Cairns in sunny Queensland, Australia is just that.

CHRISTOPHER LOGAN - CHECK-UP RESULT - STILL ILL

Christopher Logan's "Islam in Action" is unfortunately still producing the same agenda-based garbage, mind you I think it because he is a wanna-be Spencer or Fitzgerald (of the Jihad-Watch hate-site).

Christopher says in his About Me the following:

For those of you who do not know me, I have been researching Islamic theology, Islamic history and the current events of the Islamic community for approximately six years now. I have been speaking out on the worldwide problem of Islamofascism across the net, on talk radio shows and was also an administrator at JihadChat. I have studied from various sources including the Koran and the Hadiths. Also I am a content manager and writer for Right Side News, Infidels are Cool and have had several articles published on Ali Sinas popular Faith Freedom site. Most recently I have been asked to be a co-host and co-producer for the Evil Conservative Radio Show, based out of NY.

For someone who claims to know so much about Islam, the Qur'an (note he does not spell it as someone who studied it would) and the Muslim world in general, he fails to show it and in fact, based on his claim about knowledge, deliberately lies.

One point that I had made clear to Christopher on a number of occasions is that his careful and deliberate avoidance of showing the reality and certain facts is unprofessional and immoral. His pathological obsession of building the Shari'a Law issue is the basic one that those who follow this hate-agenda abuse. Of course anyone who has actually studied the Muslim World knows that the majority of Muslim countries do not have Shari'a Legal systems but are in fact SECULAR. Not only that, but of those that do, again the majority of them only have Shari'a Family Courts, with the rest being secular.

The other popular avoidance that is never mentioned by these hate-posters is that the average Muslim sitting in cafés in the Middle-East, North Africa and West Asia - discuss and debate with surprise why Europe allows such radicals to live there, let alone demand ridiculous things that do not exist in the real and actual Muslim world! Such demands, like a Caliphate, are only myths and perhaps not even known by the vast mass of the Muslims around the world.

So we can be sure, that six years of reading Spencer, Fitzgerald, blogs and being unable to correctly spell "Qur'an", that Christopher does not really know Islam. Thus, he is either a braggart or a liar.

Which one Christopher?

I also told Christopher that his main introduction is a lie in itself and that he should be honest and change it.

It says:

Islam in Action is a site dedicated to exposing the worldwide issue of Islamofascism. The owner of this site is not calling for any violence or harassment of Muslims. He is looking for political solutions. One being putting a moratorium on Muslim immigration.

What it should say is:

Islam in Action is a site dedicated to denouncing Islam. The owner of this site seeks harassment of Muslims especially by openly condemning the faith of the more than billion faithful. He is not looking for a political solutions as that would be silly, either Islam exists or does not. Muslims, he believes, are not welcome in the West.

...

FINAL NOTE ON THE WINDS OF JIHAD SITE OF WERNER REIMANN

So that is my wrap up on WoJ, I dwelled a little to long but did so to fish out some more details and motives. Now that I have done so and have no longer need to spend my time playing the stupid tit-for-tat game with such fringe low-lifes, I can fill in gaps that some have been asking me.

The blog-owner is Werner Reimann of Cairns in the northern Australian State called Queensland. It is understood that the almost 60 year old Reimann owns or owned a shop at the local Airport. His identity was exposed a few years ago by journalist Gavin King whom in my part risked his reputation of independent journalism to point out that a Kahanist and avid Palestinian and Islam hater lived in his city and was publishing hate-filled bull shit under anonymity. Only for that reason alone, do I understand King's decision.

I had known the blog-owner's identify before starting the postings but did not point it out because he will certainly cut my posts and my real objective would have been lost. I note that now that I have posted his real name on his blog that the posts are instantly disappearing and the poor little "k" kahanist must be sweating. He was already very, very angry (and it showed in his postings) that I refered to the commonly known and accepted terminology of calling Islam one of the Three Abrahamic Religions (also known as The Abrahamic Tradition).

Aparantly, there are such low-lifes whom will do anything to fulfill their semi-political agenda and it is a shame that in this case it is a religeo-zionist whom has chosen to in the end only vilify his own religion instead of my own.

...

WINDS of JIHAD’S AGENDA EXPOSED – RADICAL JEWISH SUPPORTER OF KAHANE

As I continue my inquiries into the cause, methods and reasoning behind anti-Islam hate-blogs, I have noticed how more and more radical, cynical and direct they are becoming. Why? Thus, instead of pulling the plug after my last post, I smelt a rather sinister rat behind the rather poorly run but nasty Winds of Jihad (WoJ) blog.

Thus, my pressing continued, simple prodding and provoking and drawing the rather gullible blog-owner into identifying his real reasoning and source, it worked of course.

On five separate threads the blog-owner confessed to supporting the religious-Zionist theorem of Israel expanding its borders to include the biblical lands of Samaria, Judea and Hebron.

Thus, carefully provoking a cut-out, I quoted ultra-orthodox Sabbath rules, talked about their similar violence to radical Muslims (since the subject was about a female Italian ultra-right politician who got punched during Ramadan and everyone said shame – but you get the same in west Jerusalem if you break the Sabbath there….). I then said did you hear about Kahane and a few others I named and out it came……… “I respect the teachings of Kahane very much.”

It is clear that this is the sole driving force behind this blog and perhaps even financially. His material source, being the typical right-wing anti-Islam propaganda from the same sources has for my part shown a lack of independent thought or seriousness. Also WoJ’s blogger continued to defend his position with the usual five methods which confirm that there is no logic and genuine independent concern that would normally be created. These, namely “single sources” (in this case the Spencer/Fitzgerald/Gellar group), “repetitive emotional half-quotes out of context” (single lines from the Qur’an and Hadiths), “your speaking taqiyya” (the laughable escape clause that no matter what you say I will call you a liar), “I don’t care” (emotional avoidance disregarding the fact that they raised the subject themselves) and lastly by simply changing the subject quickly over and over and to older posters and back again. In this case the WoJ blog-owner did that constantly. He added one more, saying that aspects of his blog is satirical.

Only two posters on the blog, though with strong opinions and on leaning to the right of political views, had interesting and genuine opinions and were willing to agree to points or argued logically and coherently. I had no problem with them at all, but do admit that I read one (named tjwork) wrong and incorrectly presumed he was another mindless ratbag. I, as I always do, admitted my error and apologised.

Last time I gave the blog a D- for unoriginality and lack of quality sourcing (completely relying on others to do the work for them) but in line with the fact that this poster is actually doing so for a known purposeful agenda and cause, it obviously has been re-rated as a complete F for fail as it is no longer considered a blog but a propaganda rag for someone else’s cause. The blog-owner does not actually own his blog.

.

SPENCER & JIHAD-WATCH - DOWNWARDS SPIRAL OVER BARY FIX

Attached is a well placed item over a debate between a journalist Michael Kruse and far-right Spencer confident Andrew Bostom and how clearly the Rafiq Bary has been hijacked by Spencer ..... er I mean Bostom. Kruse had been covering the case of the Muslim girl who converted to Christianity and noticed not all has been correct.

Quoted in total with appreciation, link at end.

......

Andrew Bostom Takes on Michael Kruse–Loses

Andrew Bostom (well over due for a LoonWatch piece), a close friend of Robert Spencer’s, and another self-proclaimed “Islamic scholar” is lauded on JihadWatch as having “taken on and crushed” Mchael Kruse, the St.Petersburg Times reporter who has been covering the Fathima Rifqa Bary case.
It’s a popular tactic amongst Islamophobes, especially Robert Spencer to try and twist what is clearly a negative outcome for themselves into a self-declared victory with a peppering of congratulatory self-adulation. This was the case with Spencer in his confrontation with Professor M. Cherif Bassiouni, when his alter-ego Hugh Fitzgerald proclaimed “victory” for Spencer and “defeat” for Bassiouni.
The truth is Spencer and company are ever more becoming isolated on the fringes of an increasingly radicalized segment of the Right-Wing, the company he keeps consists of neo-fascists, birthers, conspiracy theorists, Glenn Beck types, etc.

In this recent episode Bostom says that Kruse was wrong for stating that Spencer believes that “Muslims are in America to take over,” which from the body of Spencer’s work and the company he keeps is more than likely an accurate presumption, in context it is also the impression that he was trying to give at the press conference outside the courtroom of the Fathima Rifqa Bary case.
A case which is proving to be very embarrassing for Spencer, as evidence after evidence keeps coming out that the charges made by bloggers such as him and Pamela Geller that Rifqa’s life was/had to be in danger and that she was abused by her parents turn out to be bogus. Spencer’s reputation has taken a big hit and he is doing everything in his power to try to salvage some face.

Let’s look at an interesting part of the exchange between Bostom and Kruse:

Kruse to Bostom:

It’s my job to listen to everybody. It’s not my job to assign everybody equal credibility. When it comes to Robert Spencer scholars of Islamic studies outright dismiss him and his body of work. They call him an unreliable ideologue at best and a divisive bigot at worst. I can’t do that, though, can’t just ignore him like that, because he, and Pam Geller, too, are so much a part of this story, and certainly reasons it’s turned into what it’s turned into. Judging from his e-mails and how he talks in person, Rob strikes me as a pretty smart guy, but he’s a pretty smart guy with a very specific worldview. Everything he writes or says gets filtered through that static narrowness. Here is a relatively new dynamic: The other day in Orlando, Rob and Pam were speakers at a news conference, advocates for one “side” of this whole thing, and THEN they covered it as members of the press. They’re covering a story they’ve helped create, or at the very least stoke. The front row of the courtroom was for media, and there was the AP, some newspaper reporters, some TV reporters, some radio reporters, and there was Pam, a woman who last fall wrote a story on her blog saying Barack Obama was the illegitimate son of Malcom X. All of it is an interesting piece of the sprawling Rifqa Bary story, worth watching and considering now, and during the next story like it, and the next one after that.

Here Kruse devastates Bostom and Spencer by pretty much objectively telling it like it is, or as Dave Chapelle used to say Keepin’ it real. This is incomprehensible to polemicists and subjective ideologues such as Bostom and Spencer. It is incontrovertibly true that Spencer (and Bostom for that matter) is completely and thoroughly rejected by academics, we have noted that before here.

Yet, Kruse makes the point that he as a reporter cannot reject Spencer and Pamela Geller out of hand because THEY ARE PART OF THIS STORY. In fact, he points out they have in many ways CREATED this story or at the very least stoked it.

That is absolutely true, ever since the story broke Spencer and Pam have been on a crusade, whipping up their supporters in the blog world to “save Fathima Bary” from a sure “honor killing.” They knew nothing about the family or the context, they cared nothing for this little girl or her future, but eager to make Muslims and Islam look barbarous they attempted to castigate this family in front of the public thereby destroying any chance in those early days of reconciliation.

When fact after fact came out confirming the family’s story, supported by the Ohio police and Children Services, Pamela Geller resorted to making accusations which she claimed she heard from “anonymous sources” that Rifqa Bary was abused throughout her whole life, and that she was even sexually abused by her uncle.

Spencer applauded her in all this, extolling that the mainstream media was ignoring this “mountain of evidence” secured by Pamela Geller that showed that Rifqa Bary’s family was fundamentalist crazy and had abused her. For some reason the police were unable to unearth any evidence of these libelous accusations? Probably because they are made up whole-cloth.
Kruse, highlights how incongruous it is for a woman such as Pamela Geller, who claims Obama is a Mooslim, anti-Semite, Socialist son of Malcolm X to be in the press area covering a story that she is actively creating. Bostom responds with more polemic,

Bostom to Kruse:

I deal with your non-sequiturs about Robert and Pamela, below. But first, you deliberately and grossly misrepresented what Robert said and the very specific context in which he made his statement–despite standing right next to him, as one can see in the videotape. That reflects very poorly on your own credibility and your ability to judge anyone else’s for that matter.
Do you not see that? Do you not see your own transparent–certainly to me– “static narrowness?”

As for scholarship, who are you to judge? What do you know about Islamic doctrine and history??

I asked you to contact Ibn Warraq via e-mail–He says he never heard from you, and judging from your responses to my repeated questioning you never obtained his definitive scholarly assessment of apostasy, “Leaving Islam”–so clearly real scholarship on the subject matter at hand—apostasy from Islam–does not even appeal to you.

Have you attempted to contact another high profile apostate from Islam, Nonie Darwish, who recently published “Cruel and Usual Punishment,” and wrote about a high profile apostasy case ongoing NOW in her native Egypt, in early August??

I have compiled, edited, and introduced two critically acclaimed scholarly compendia–one on the jihad, the other on Islamic Antisemitism. I have also read and on several occasions reviewed Robert’s books, and they easily exceed most of what passes for “scholarship” on Islam in today’s academy–despite targeting, deliberately, the larger lay audience. Regardless, they are solid works in their own right that are meticulously documented. Have you read them and found identifiable flaws in any of them??

As for Pamela, excuse me, but from my where I sit, she is doing the basic shoe leather investigative reporting those like yourself have thus far refused to do.
How many of Rifqa’s friends have you interviewed, starting for example with the now publicly identified Jamal Jivangee? What sort of of financial investigation of Mr. and Mrs. Bary’s businesses have you conducted??

I think you are being very disingenuous, and your pretense of “objectivity” is simply ludicrous.

As we mentioned Kruse did not misrepresent Spencer, Spencer just spoke very badly and it is not a stretch for Kruse to say that Spencer believes “Muslims are in America to take over” because that is exactly what he was insinuating at that right-wing blogger “press conference.”

Then Bostom attempts to accuse Kruse of being ill-informed and not knowing anything about Islam (ironic) and then lists himself (in a bit of shameless self-promotion) and another Islamophobic writer, Ibn Warraq as “experts” that Kruse should have contacted.

This is a highly rich and whiny statement at the same time, what part of discredited do Bostom and Spencer not get? People don’t choose you guys as experts in the field of Islam because you are a pair of polemicists with deep hatred for Islam and Muslims. You can’t blame people for not considering you suitable candidates. He also trots out Nonie Darwish who believes there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim, she dumps all Muslims in the radical camp, she also compares Islam to Nazism amongst other interesting Islamophobic anecdotes.

By this time Kruse is almost done, knowing by now where Andrew Bostom comes from, i.e. the far right lunatic camp and says,

Kruse to Bostom:

I should stop, I know this, but I just have to ask: We’ve talked on the phone, we’ve e-mailed, and you seem like an intelligent person, so how can you possibly take Pam Geller seriously?

Bostom to Kruse:

Excuse me, but just as you have calumniated Spencer–with a live video record to debunk you and prove your deliberate misrepresentation—you’ve now done the same with Geller.

From here:http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/10/how-could-stanl.html

“The ‘Atlas says that Barack Obama is Malcolm X’s love child’ charge has gone viral among leftards and lizards. The only problem with it is that it is false. I am not the author of this post, and I posted it because the writer did a spectacular job documenting Obama’s many connections with the Far Left. The Malcolm X claim is one minor part of this story, and was of interest to me principally as part of the writer’s documentation that Stanley Ann Dunham could not have been where the Obama camp says she was at various times. I do not believe that Barack Obama is Malcolm X’s love child, and never did — but there remain many, many unanswered questions about his early life and upbringing.”

As a scrupulously honest, painstakingly objective journalist you must know that Pamela has written “I do not believe that Barack Obama is Malcolm X’s love child, and never did”? Would you even care if you did know?

We know the answer to that, as your calumny against Spencer makes plain.

As we demonstrated Kruse didn’t calumny against Spencer or Geller but Bostom does by trying to defend Pamela. Pamela is thoroughly discredited for more then her posting of the Malcolm-X-is-the-father-of-Barack-Obama-conspiracy, which she attempts to half-heartedly disavow now, but also for her other conspiracies that Barack Obama is a Muslim, that he was indoctrinated into Jihad in Pakistan, that he hates Jews and is an anti-Semite, that he is not an American citizen and was not born in America; all that doesn’t even touch a bit of what she says about Palestinians, Arabs, and real Muslims.

On her post about Barack Obama being the illegitimate son of Malcolm X, which she now claims she doesn’t support, there are some troubling questions that it seems Bostom doesn’t want to raise or answer. Like the obvious as day and night, why did she post that crazy article in the first place? Is that any way to prove that there was “no way that Obama’s mother could have been in America when Obama was born?” The fact is that Pam posted the piece with out any qualifiers, she posted it in her name without attributing it to anyone else. That brings her story of never having supported it into high doubt, the attempt to cover it up now and sweep it under the rug is not going to work especially when her track record has been loonier than the loons.

http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/09/andrew-bostom-takes-on-mike-kruse-loses/

.

An email from Peter

Yesterday I read an email from someone whom I have posted here (with permission) that includes my response. Peter has been polite, civil and though we have ideology differences over the subject of faith and religion, we share an understanding that it is important to know and understand people and probably more - be civil about it. If only those bloggers that I point out were so inclined....

.....

Solkhar

I found your blogspot after reading your posts on the Winds of Jihad site..

I wouldn't mind hearing your opinion on a couple issues and you certainly sound like you know what you are talking about ..

Would you agree that never in the history of mankind has a particular religion or ideology come under so much scrutiny as Islam.?

It seems the whole world is looking at Islam under a microscope. Every time you turn the TV on in Australia there is some documentary about it, a day doesn't go by without every major newspaper at least having some articles on Islam/muslims and it has certainly been the hot topic for political and social analysts since 9/11.

I myself have purchased a number of books on Islam including Karen Armstrongs "Mohammed", not to mention the Koran itself. In fact I feel I know as much about Islam now as i do about Christianity - the religion I was born into and grew up with ( I am now an atheist ).

The point I am tring to make is that the more we scrutinise the world's major religions the more we realise that they are just based on ancient superstitions that have absolutley no relevance to the way the world is today.

Australia has an atheist population of 25pc however only 10pc of the population are regular churchgoers. The numbers keep declining by the day and I can't ever see this trend reversing as long as technology and science keeps improving. In some western European countries the atheist population is as high as 70pc ( this is true for all of the Scandinavian countries). In Japan it is also about 70pc.

I honestly believe if every man, woman and child in countries like Iran, Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia had access to the internet the decline of Islam would be rapid. One hundred years ago the atheist population of Australia was less than 1pc. Currenlty in many Islamic countries the atheist population is zero.

I have been trying to google information on atheists movements in the Middle East and other Islamic countries and it almost impossible to find any information at all.

Do you know if countires like Egypt, Iran , Pakistan etc etc have atheists? Are there any well known atheists who live in Islamic countries?. I mean surely there must be free thinking people like Christopher Hitchens, Ayan Hrisi Ali and Wafa Sultan even in countires like Saudi Arabia. It is just plain human nature and natural for humans to question why we are here and whether there is a god .

I would love to hear your opinions and comments on what I have written.

kind regards

Peter

......


Peter,

thanks for the email, questions and your civility, I mention that because like the blog you referred to, some do not have civility but rather ugly agendas.

I agree, Islam is under the greatest of scrutiny, it has to do with many factors I believe, the current war on terrorism, globalization (ie the now constant interaction between cultures and faiths) and global media - before the Internet and access to other and traditional media is dominating life.

It would be correct, I think, to add that with the interactions from globalization, mass migration and conflict also comes politicizing the issues, thus it has become a subject of scoring for domestic consumption - ie the far right, radical leftists, radical evangelism etc. There is, of course, war going on as well and mankind has always uses the "us versus them" emotion in times of crisis.

That you purchased a Qur'an (note the spelling, it is closer phonetically to the correct pronunciation), is good - not that I am trying to sell my faith (I do not do that) - I would rather talk to someone who has attempted to read it than those that simply read blogs.

Peter, the subject of faith for me is a personal one and as the word implies in all its variations, it is a matter of faith. I have no issue with you being an atheist by the way. But I would say and take you to task on your comment about "ancient superstitions that have absolutely no relevance to the way the world is today", considering that faith is also a subject of culture, history, identity, community and social cohesion (or disruption). I would go further and say that the basis of moral standards comes from religion and faith.

I have no knowledge of the statistics of atheism but I would be certain that there are of course Muslims whom declare they are but in fact are atheists. As I am sure you are aware, atheism is under the haddiths that control most of the clerical and present religious habits of Muslims worse than apostasy and in many of the more backward nations, a death sentence. So you can imagine, inside many Muslim countries, declaring oneself especially say to a statistic count that they are an atheist is simply not going to happen for the foreseeable future.

A last few points, I find Christopher Hitchens interesting, I certainly allow him his right to his opinion but I am one who says it is not religion that is evil and has caused hate and wars in the world, it is in fact mankind that is capable of evil, hate and wars and they will automatically declare faith and religion is on their side. That is radicalism, extremism and fundamentalism.

As for Ayan Hrisi Ali (whom I know) and Wafa Sultan - I think they are sell-outs and use and abuse Islam to sell books and be famous, simple.

p.s. may I post your question and my response on my blog? In this case with the civility of your question, I will give the same in asking. I would cut your full name and no email, just the name Peter.

kind regards

Solkhar

Dinah Babbitt, 1923-2009

The following is repeat from an article sent to me about the life of Dinah Babbitt whom recently died. Who is she?

This short obituary from the Sydney Morning Herald says it all. It shows the greatest and the most basest of what mankind is capable of, but most of all it tells of survival. I give full credit, reference and acknowledge rights to SMH and hope they do not mind my putting this out in full. Reference and link as at the end of the docuement.




The artist Mengele spared to document his wicked work
August 28, 2009

Dinah Babbitt, 1923-2009

DINAH BABBITT'S life was spared at Auschwitz by Josef Mengele, the infamous Nazi physician known as the Angel of Death, because of her skills as a portrait painter.
Mengele, with a flick of his hand, selected Dinah for survival on the basis of a fresco she had painted in the children's barracks of Birkenau. In 1943 her skills were deemed to be superior to colour photography. The fresco was a reconstruction of a scene from the film Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, which she had seen in Prague; she had removed her yellow star, which Jews were forced to wear, to get into the cinema.
Mengele provided Dinah with watercolours and said that she was to illustrate his experiments. He fancied himself as an anthropologist and told her that he wanted to document the inferior physiognomy and organs of Jews and Gypsies.
She bargained for the life of her mother, threatening to run into the camp's electric fence unless she, too, was spared. ''I'm not staying here without my mother alive,'' Dinah said she told Mengele.
While painting a portrait of Mengele, he asked her if she had noticed something about him that only his wife had ever observed. Without pause, she mentioned a flat, round birthmark, which she had likened to the tags inserted in the ears of stuffed dachshunds sold as children's toys. He laughed and nodded.
Such was the wit, intelligence and manipulative genius of the painter, who spent two years in Auschwitz - a feat of survival matched by few others. She said humour and a tradable skill were keys for survival. Locksmiths, plumbers, doctors or artists survived; so, too, did twins.
Babbitt, who has died of cancer in Felton, California, at 86, was born Annemarie Dinah Gottliebova in Brno, Czechoslovakia, and studied art in Prague until Jews were turned away from school. She spent a year as a prisoner in Theresienstadt, where she fell in love and, despite the terror, described that time as the happiest year in her life. She was then shipped to Auschwitz.
Babbitt liked to describe a scene that exemplified the use of humour of concentration camp life. A double latrine with two stalls stood in the family compound, separated by a flimsy piece of see-through material. As Dinah was leaving one stall and a man the other, he said to her: ''My lady, not to anger the gods by saying so, you look still well.'' This was a panegyric. He was referring to the fact that he had seen her backside through the partition.
Her lover from Theresienstadt died from typhus in the last few days of the war. After a few months in Paris, where she scandalously, at the time, had an affair with a black musician in Duke Ellington's band, she worked as an animator with Warner Brothers in California and married Art Babbitt, the animator who had worked on Snow White. She worked on characters including Wile E. Coyote, Daffy Duck and Tweety Bird.
Dinah Babbitt reared two children, attended wild Hollywood parties, divorced and later loved again. She prolonged her good looks with several facelifts, told bawdy jokes and even in her 80s talked about death, sex and life.
A sad aspect was that, in 1973, she learnt that the Auschwitz Museum held some of her Gypsy portraits. She travelled to Auschwitz, determined to finally liberate at least the memory of those she had painted by taking the portraits home and perhaps to the Holocaust Museum in Washington but the Polish museum authorities refused, saying that if the paintings belonged to anyone, it was Mengele's descendants.
Her nephew and a pair of Mengele twins, Annetta Able and Stephanie Heller, live in Melbourne. Babbitt and her mother helped the twins survive Auschwitz. Two daughters survive her.



(http://www.smh.com.au/national/obituaries/the-artist-mengele-spared-to-document-his-wicked-work-20090827-f14n.html

..

Acceptance, Tokenism or Hypocrisy

I was sent from Australia the photo and Sydney Morning Herald (smh.com.au) front page item about Hazem El Masri the NSW Rugby League play-maker's final match. It came with a wonderful photo (displayed) that shows him, justifiably proud and his wife (in hijab) and children. That is great and I am happy for him and rather proud to see Aussie celebration directed at a Muslim family and there is no comments or pointing fingers at the wife in her hijab. Great!

But it raises a question, how much is normal and justifiable happiness for a sports celebrity and how quickly it is forgotten and the bigotry and the usual "us & them" rhetoric comes back. This is not about Australia but about the West at all.

Westerners, like other parts of the world, follow the human habit of madly adoring sports. I wonder how many of the bigots and radical right-wing agenda freaks and blogers whom demand the shutting down, eradication or deportation of Islam and Muslims - then goes and supports their favourite football team that has a number of Muslims as part of their integral team. Are the French right-wingers aware that the super-star status Nicolas Anelka (see photo below with Samir Nasri), Éric Abidal and Franck Ribéry are all Muslim converts, let alone those born Muslim such as Zinadine Zidane? In fact Zidane is a perfect example of being identified with France and Football but is he identified and acknowledged as being Muslim?

Perhaps the greatest ever boxer Mohammed Ali has been clearly identified as Muslim because of his public battle to do so, but how much of that latter support, enthusiasm and loyalty actually included the value that he took so seriously - and how many that supported him in the ring actively despise his faith as "evil". Was it the case with fellow boxers Anthony Mundine from Australia, Britain's Danny Wilson and American boxers Bernard Hopkins and Mike Tyson.

Football is probably the thing that catches out the armchair bigots whom declare a hatred (and worse) against Islam but will go out and celebrate and get drunk over a football match, hypocritically ignoring the bigotry for the duration of the match. Even British hooligans who will later go out and punch a Paki or two but will sing the Notts County Anthem not realising that their star striker Lee Hughes is a Muslim convert and most Rotterdamers like myself do not realise that their famous "son" and international footballer Robin Van Persie is a Muslim (and married to a Moroccan like myself as well).

Apart from the many African favourites playing in the European football leagues many of the great personalities are just "footballers" and are forgotten that they have faiths and beliefs that some of these bigoted fans ignore. Frederick Kanoute, Sevilla , El Hadji Diouf, Salomon Kalou, Nihat Kahveci, Diomansy Kamara, Samir Nasri, Zlatan Ibrahimovic and Hassan Salihamidzic are all sung and cheered and then later condemned.

I wonder with all the remembrance, memorials and rebuilding of Michael Jackson and the Jackson Five that anyone cares that Jermaine Jackson is also a Muslim convert.

Winds of Jihad - Scrutinized with a D- for originality

The continuing processes of looking at hate-sites and agenda-based blogs has brought out in me a level of expectations. The usual format is now common-place with misquotes, mixed with mostly right-wing politics and the often well-written but still misguided and questionably motivated blame that Islam is the evil in this world.

It is with this expectation that coming the Winds of Change blog by sheikyermami is such a great disappointment! As mentioned in my postings before, here we have the master of unoriginality and in fact the question is given to why it exists in the first place.

The blog owner does not come up with items himself but copies the works of others - we can only assume because it will make his own blog look a bit more better than it really is. His postings are rather mouthing off when he actually does attempt to write himself and he makes wild allegations and mixes them with pretty poor history examples.

I took him to task a few times over his understanding of history. He goes under the basis that everything and anything touched by Islam is and must be backwards and thus he found it unacceptable to contemplate facts and events that tell us otherwise. He chose to pick on the history of Al Andalus and quoted the failed academic Spencer whom is detested by the academic world. When I pointed out that Al Andalus at times during its 800 year existence in the south of Iberia was the most culturally advanced community in Europe - he attempted to defend the indefensible. His constant and irrational attempt to prove otherwise by quoting subjects like slavery and events in the 11th century as evidence was laughable to say the least. Of course there were events in every nation that were dark hours and quoting one period out of 800 years is not a cheap shot but an academic and intellectual failure. "sheikyermami" in fact had tried to copy the style of Robert Spencer and did a piss poor job of it. Spencer being the master of making accurate quotes and descriptions of events but ensuring that he chooses out a long history only those that suit his point (and carefully avoiding those more numerous events that would prove otherwise).

The blog-owner obviously became rather afraid that his non-serious but ugly Islam bashing and hate-mongering was being pointed out and thus more and more avoided answering directly any points I made - knowing well enough that he had failed. But he made some rather stupid accusations and I would not let him lose on it.

He tried to falsely accuse me of avoiding his own questions - that did not exist. He sort of asked a non-serious one and since I did not answer he stated "Solkhar did not answer my 10 questions!". Going through the entire blog, there was no ten questions so I said give them to me. No such thing, eventually a "question 2" occurred. So much for the existence of the now infamous 10. In fact he later remarked on the Question no.4 posting (yep he is still trying) that he acknowledges and thanks those that have contributed possible questions, confirming that of course the original 10 did not exist.

He made one accusation on Islam that I decided to take him to task on and not let go, knowing full well that he would rather have me cut from posting than answer. He stated that the Jihad (Jihad al Sghrir) is an integral part of Islamic doctrine and that all Muslims must support it and to do otherwise is apostasy or heresy. So I returned the favour and asked him the question and told him that I will not answer his invisible and still not existing 10 questions on Islam until he answers me. So I asked:

"Where in the official institutions of Islam, such as the Five Schools of Islam, is there support, declaring of or sanction any Jihad?". Before I asked that question he tried to quote individual clerics, mostly radicals whom at various times mentioned the word Jihad. When pointing that out, he did the usual squirm and talked about violence in Pakistan or the like.

He will not answer that question because he will avoid denying that he simply lied to support his no-holds-barred mouth-off on Islam. It is a sign of unprofessionally and I simply am disappointed, considering how cheap and nasty his blog is compared to others whom at least try and be smart about their hate-mongering.

A D- is given in this instance because frankly speaking the quality and content are shit.

As a footnote, he has come up with the "I set the conditions for you to post here, Solkhar, not you." Plus added the threat "From now on I will delete any and every post of yours unless you answer the 5 questions I posted for you. Give it your best shot or take your camel and ride!" which is the confirmation that he will avoid answering and not tolerate anyone pointing out what a hypocrit he is. He not only sets nothing but flooding his blog with hate-rhetoric but also allows Christian prosthelitizing along with it.

The marriage of religious radicalism with militancy and when it fails

I have spoken before about the theory that the current explosion of radicalism and terrorism comes from the horrid marriage between radical and extremist Islam and militancy. These events of 1978 in Iran had created an excuse for every radical cleric to search for a militant force willing to follow it. The catastrophic merge and its success also created fear amongst those countries with a strong radical presence, such as Saudi Arabia and Sudan to capitulate to its own radical clerics with results that are still dominating its society and also producing the backbone of terrorists as well as some of the worse terrorists themselves.

But that marriage is a costly one and both parties have to give something and sacrifice others. In the case of the Iranian Revolution, the militants that became the Revolutionary Guards that still control much of the security infrastructure of Iran to this day were not always just subservient slaves to the founder Ayatollah Khomeini. During those very first days of that event, the revolutionaries stormed the United States Embassy in Tehran and that was not at the order of the Supreme Leader, in fact he was angry and tried to have it cancelled. As we all now know the story well, he wanted to stop this infringement of International Law and he feared the legitimacy of the Islamic Revolution was now at doubt but when he witnessed the support and anti-American sentiment amongst the crowds (and that it had already occurred) that it was impossible to back-down. Most certainly though, Khomeini recognized that the newly named Revolutionary Guard was a power to be reckoned with, or to put it another way – he was stuck with them as much as they were with him.

We have witnessed now in present day Islamic Republic of Iran that the current President is a former member of the Revolutionary Guard – and was one of those that stormed the US Embassy. His revolutionary rhetoric is classic, somewhat like that of Saddam Hussein’s phrases that are certainly only important for domestic consumption targeting the bulk of the less literate population that is the backbone of support. Thus when in an international audience is listening in or gathered around him there is an instant clash and confusion to what is being said or to be blunt, sounds ludicrous and stupid.

But this image should not be played too lightly, he is an important figure with a great deal of power and he represents that ever present factor in current Iranian power – the Revolutionary Guards. Even now the current Supreme Leader is obviously not happy with the rather clumsy international Statesmanship of the President but is not willing to deal with him, even though he has the option of more moderate but still patriotic and pro-theological politicians such as former Presidents.

The above examples is how the union between radical religious groups and revolutionary militants is not always simple marital bliss, now we will see a recent example of how a militant group has rejected the marriage proposal of a radical religious group – because they are not needed.

Yesterday’s announcement by the radical Jund Ansar Allah Cleric and founder Abdel-Latif Moussa in Rafah (Hamas controlled Gaza Strip) of a declaration of an Islamic Emirate and Shari’a Law resulted in a gun-battle by Hamas killing the Cleric and 21 other supporters. Why?

Simply put there was no need by the militants to declare God is on their side as they were already on in power and they have an infrastructure. To add to that, they are now over the phase of gaining control “no-matter-what” and are now in the phase of trying to legitimize their status. Thus it is not only a bad move to side with radicals of the religious side but they want to show that they are in control and the authority, not seeking to introduce a new one. That is why Hamas is no friend of most other militant groups connected to religious ideologies – such as Al Qaeda.

Another way to look at it and coming back to the main principle of this theory – they are not religious – though they may claim it anyhow, but are in fact a radical political militant group.

Either way, we see the birth of an interesting situation, a terrorist-linked militant group not only refusing to join the marriage game with a radical and extreme religious group but attacking it based on recognition that such unions are literally a “marriage made in hell”.

The Bigot Word and the Taqqiya Escape Clause

I noticed on a far right-wing blog site the following phrase to try and defend against the now regular use of the accusation of Bigotry.

“The left should be warned: The libelous smear of racism has lost its sting. If everything is racism, then nothing is. The charge has lost its power. The more that leftists pull this evil trick, the more folks will shrug.”

Perhaps the word is overused by the leftists in their battles against them, but I certainly have seen many bigoted statements against Muslims and Islam in general.

I thought of something though, the incredible use of the word "taqqiya" as being an escape clause by far right-wingers (whom are classic text-book bigots) that any response given by a Muslim is a well planned lie or "taqqiya". I bet you most Muslims, even native Arabic speakers would not even know that word means.

Thus, using the above format, I put on that blog site the comment below:

“The far-right should be warned: The libelous escape clause of taqqiya has lost its sting. If every response is taqqiya, then nothing is. The excuse has no value and is diminishing. The more that agenda based far-rightists pull this evil trick, the more folks will laugh for what rubbish it is”.

..

War Crimes, Attrocities, Blame and the IDF-Gaza Issue

This morning I read a well put article by Petra Marquardt-Bigman called "Israel responds to war crimes allegations", on the Harry's Place blog site. It identifies and critiques the IDF report and response and perhaps that is correct, but I think there is a bigger picture and I expressed it as a comment. Here it is.....

..

The item by Petra Marquardt-Bigman is very well presented and correct in all its reporting and I commend it.
Having said that, it shows how as another mentioned, the international processes are not geared towards insurgency, revolution, terrorism and the like.
There is no doubt that civilians were targeted, illegal weapons were used, brutalities and murders had occurred by IDF forces and there is also no doubt that the Israeli people are subjected to bombings, rocket attacks, threats of violence by organized militant groups and more. All are not only without doubt, they are documented.
The problem is dealing with it, or not.
War is brutal, deadly - that is a reality. Since the onset of open media, journalism, the video camera and now the mobile phone and Internet reporting the realities that happen in war, we are now all aware of what is happening. This started during the Vietnam War and since then war has become unpopular and ugly and every act has been scrutinized, judged and condemned and every military and their government has been trying to suppress it. This has not been altered.
Again, the question is the problem of dealing with it or not.
The proof is that a military exercises has victims, the target may be a legitimate military but often enough it is civilian or civilian infrastructure. The targeting of the Taliban in Afghanistan and P

akistan by drones has been successful militarily but the civilian targets are politically a failure. The sending of thousands of troops into a zone to fight and occupy, particularly when the enemy are indistinguishable from the civilians, results in frustration and anger by the troops and indiscriminate killings will certainly follow and you see that everywhere.
So these are difficult realities but there are those that can be worked on, targeted as unacceptable and this should be perhaps the focus.
There are instigators and politicians that provoke the targeting of peoples and if combined with military force ensures the atrocities and there are military forces that are driven by ideologies, radicals and extremists that are capable of anything. Rawanda and Bosnia are perfect examples as is what is happening in Darfur. By making the politicians, ideologues and rogue generals responsible, the targeting of war criminals is easily achieved and will go a far way towards distinguishing between the ugly realities of war and the deliberate horrors of crime through the deliberate use of the ugliness of war.
Terrorist groups, such as Al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah have crossed the line a multitude of times and its leadership are responsible. The issue of the IDF force should not so much be about the individual actions on the battle-field but how much of that was simple military brutality but what was organized and provoked from within - how much of it was political and by whom?

The tour of anti-Islamic sites continues - so does the banning....

I previously mentioned a blogger known as "sheikyermami". He rather thinks of him/herself as some form of expert on a moral crusade to fight Islam and in reality just a cut & paste exercise using the works of others. He is a self-confessed friend and admirer of Robert Spencer - the would-be anti-Islam saviour of America whom created Jihad-Watch.

This blogger thinks he knows history but rather believes what he thinks it should be rather than its reality. He wrote an item about Al Andalus, quoting Spencer's distortions and though I can commend him for blindly supporting his friend and mentor, he laughingly embarrasses himself constantly defending non-existent history. Spencer has left him in the lurch so to speak.

Spencer argued against recognised academics whom referred to the important periods of Al Andalus (Arab Iberia) that lasted 800 years and of course Spencer attacked it citing events in the 11th century as proof. Note only some events out of 800 years! No historian or academic would ever embarrass himself in doing so, unless he is a propagandist with an agenda such as Spencer. Thus when identifying this, the blog-owner in question will flatly deny the historical events and when pressed changes the subject. In this case, the blogger changed it to the Ottomans, a bad move as it is a favourite subject of mine, not to mention being posted there. Wild comments about Ottoman laws and the abuse of Jews and Christians making it out as systematic and binding administrative, coordinated abuse (he tried and failed on that one about Al Andalus) all fell flat when I gave him a lesson on Ottoman jurisprudence and its system. But the entire point was like his beloved mentor Spencer, he quoted an event by a single source and counted as proof of the entire period. No one doubts how horrid and ugly history has been as well as how inspiring it was - it is after all "history" and it takes no sides. The point I make is that there is no problem making statements and identifying events - but do not lie.

The blogger "sheikyermami" admitted that the "We are the wake-up call. Resisting Islam, raising awareness and demanding a reversal of Mohammedan immigration is self-preservation and a sacred duty for every non-Muslim. " and that says it all, he has an agenda that is very questionable and ugly, as ugly as radical, extremist Muslims.

My last post is now under "awaiting moderation" which means probably he has not the balls to post it, so to not lose the item I have posted it below, I expect to be banned from his blog as well. He and another agenda based commenter laughed when I used the word "music" arguing that there is no music in Islam and the Muslim World, and to back up the point, the blogger tried to pull the Hadith Qursi items.... as if he is now an expert on Islamic Studies. I should give him the web addresses of the hundreds of Music Video Satellite stations and magazines........ .

"Two issues there Dear Blogger, I noticed rather than take up points that I correctly make you carefully change them and avoid the subject of history altogether to come back to the same theme of the events of today, and I was not aware that you dislike my attempt to put lipstick on your snout?? Sorry, I am not a native English speaker and have no idea what that meant.

There is no need to proclaim each time events of history and then ignore them later on when returned. The Turks committed a genocide against the Armenians and though they like to not admit it, they will and are coming to terms with that rather like the British are still coming to grips with the genocide of the Tasmanian Aboriginals. Yep history is an ugly thing, that is the first thing one learns and placing them as examples for justification for modern behaviour simply does not stick – but then any academic or someone who respects history and politics knows that.

I stand by the history that I have given, go seek a real academic and not your beloved Spencer and you will see the difference, I do not play up to cut & paste portions, I look at the history as a whole. I acknowledge both the ugly and stupidities of all in history as well as the events that should be admired.

Calling me a jihadist is the funniest of all, I guess that is the sign of an self-admitted anti-Islam crusader with a “sacred duty”, when I have spent a good part of my life fighting them. You may have forgotten that I am involved in the tracking of terrorism-financing here in North Africa (mostly by the way via counterfeiting of products for Hezbollah’s battle against Israel) and I have a portion of my right wrist scared for life because of a radical’s letter bomb when I was posted in Jakarta – so your rather obnoxious taunt falls more than flat. Your pipe dream that every Muslim lives in tents and plans jihad is just that and because of that view, you have played into the real radical and militant Islamist’s hands by alienating all Muslims.

As for your putting Hadith Qudsi, so what? Are you again trying to put the references of the 7th century and considering them obligatory for today, does that make you the radical extremist? Why is it that if you put Saudi, Sudanese, Lybian or even Iranian television you will find music played? Why is it that Al Andalus established religious singing and harmonics? Perhaps it is you who wishes to believe that radicalism and extremism is correct and blinding ignore what real Muslims believe and accept because it makes your rantings irrelevant and falling flat.

Just so you know, to the average non-radical or extremist Muslim, the messages from Hadith Qudsi is very clear, that during the time of the Prophet, entertainment was placed far above faith and devotion and thus at that time he outlawed it. So the average Muslim knows that he can love, adore and enjoy Music, even find devotion to God through it, but when it comes to religious obligations, it is not something of importance in comparison. My 5yr old son knows this, but aparantly Western right-wingers do not.

I was booted off GoV for two reasons, the first because I was monitoring them and reporting on it, that I had never denied and second because in the end they did not like the fact that a Muslim was on their blog for a long period and it provoked the bigots and racists that were there and contribute regularly.

GoV does deserve credit for trying to moderate this bunch of fanatics and for attempting to put as much original material and arguments as possible. I do not care about their political right-wing views or agendas as long as it does not include bigotry or lies.

This is frankly were you fall flat on your arse each time. Apart from your subservience to Spencer and using Jihad-Watch as some imaginary authority – like your Islam and Science item above – you come out with items such as your crossed-the-line of dignity item on Islam and Females (now closed) that was just a cut & paste dump of agenda based BS and pornographic items.

I suggest you stop embarrassing yourself in trying to pretend to be sophisticated and educated in your postings when in fact you have failed in both. Your agenda is now self-confessed and your take on the reality of the past and present is more than obvious, it stands out and is smacking you in the back of the head. "

..