Saturday, December 10, 2011

My Criteria for a Mate


As my girlfriend Lauren on Facebook was asking friends to make an individualized list "Fifteen Criteria for My Ideal Mate," I decided to be appropriately silly and came up with (well more than 15)...
---------

For starters:
 
Sexuality
1) Must be heterosexual, interested in pursuing an uncompromisingly monogamous relationship, and specifically, must not be open to the idea of polygamy now, or in the future.
 
Creed
 
2) Must be a practicing Muslim or other monotheist.  I try not to hold others to a standard to which I myself don’t adhere. Hence I think it fair to expect he should not be engaging in any of the “major sins,” and at least attempting to practice the five pillars). Ideally such an arrangement would bring me closer to my faith.
 
3) Cannot be an Uncle Tom or sycophant for the existing order (ie, he must, in keeping with the Hadith, at least “hate it [injustice] in his heart”).
 
4) Must have a love and concern for the oppressed communities around him, regardless of their problems.
 
5) Must believe in amr bil mauroof and nahi unal munkari and/or  Ma’at.
 
6) Since silence is complicity, must be actively involved in some aspect of the struggle for social justice, ie, must be concerned and active in something beyond himself.
 
7) Must be willing to go to jail for what he believes in.
 
Career
 
8) Should be a science (preferably bioscience) person.
 
9) Must be willing to allow me to pursue a bioscience career; and preferably encourage and help me to progress in that career. In other words, he will be the leading strand to my lagging strand =).
 
Personality
 
10) Must bring honesty and integrity into the relationship, and in every aspect of his life.
 
11) Must be willing to conduct relationship through shura (major Islamic concept of “mutual consultation”)
 
12) Must practice discipline and value it in others.
 
13) Must have a sense of humor.
 
14) Must speak/listen to me with respect.
 
15) [In keeping with what Garvey and Elijah Muhammad taught about the company one ought to keep], must be smarter than me (with all this entails).
 
Morphology, etc. (desirable but not absolutely necessary)
 
16) Baritone or other masculine voice (voices and accents are very important to me);
 
17) Very dark-skinned (at least at dark as Denzel :));
 
18) Very tall (at least 5’10”);
 
19)  Faster (as a runner) than me (with all this entails);
 
20) Able to communicate effectively in writing;
 
21) Appreciation/knowledge of other languages and cultures.
 

Thursday, September 29, 2011

An Open Letter to Russell Means


Dear Brother Russell,

I was deeply saddened to hear of your cancer. To me, you have always been a symbol of resistance. Indeed your unrelenting stance for Native American rights, your proud carriage, and your commitment to the struggle was deeply etched in my mind as an adolescent doing support work for the Native rights struggle. Many years have passed since I invited you to address a gathering on indigenous rights—under the auspices of Jamaat al-Muslimeen—at a church near American University in Washington, DC circa 1983. You shared the dais with Palestinian and Kurdish speakers. Afterwards, you stayed with Damu Smith in his French Street Northwest DC home. I was then about 15-years old, and it was my first independent organizing experience.  Inspired to no end by Wounded Knee ('73) and disgusted by the railroadings of activists which followed, the conference was something I felt compelled to do. Because my background is fundamentally Islamic, I included Palestinian and Kurdish representatives in the hopes that the representatives of these three oppressed groups as well as their audience at the conference might find common ground with each other through the commonality of their respective struggles. And, although you didn't know me and I had yet to establish myself as an activist, you generously accepted my invitation.

After the conference where you spoke, my great admiration for AIM led me to organize a chapter of the Leonard Peltier Support Group in the DC area (I was still a teenager). The LPSG-DC invited Steve Robideau, Chief Billy Tayac, Winona LaDuke, and others to speak at various times (all in the late 1980s). Chief Tayac also introduced me to Titus Smith [medicine man from Rosebud] during his visit to the DC area to raise funds and awareness for Rosebud.

Your words to me during your brief visit—that one must never lose sight of one’s roots— became particularly relevant, and a few years after the American Indians-Palestinians-Kurds conference (where you spoke), I graduated from high school, and left shortly thereafter for South Asia, with the aim of writing about the travails of people in my part of the world. Because of this, I became, for a time, out of touch with the Native American struggle.

In recent years, I admired from afar your bid for Pine Ridge chairperson, your outspoken stance on Thanksgiving, the publication of Where White Men Fear to Tread, and much else.

These days, I am the Vice Chair of the Baltimore-Washington, DC Chapter of the Jericho Movement, which seeks freedom for all political prisoners, including Leonard Peltier. And I still work with Jamaat al-Muslimeen, the Muslim organization founded by my father, Dr. Kaukab Siddique, which stands strong on a variety of peace and justice issues, and lends strong support to the struggle to free all political prisoners (the numbers of Muslim ones have, unfortunately, multiplied these days). I have always held the belief that in the face of grave injustice, “silence is complicity.” The political prisoner issue is one which touches my heart because clearly any one of us who refuses to join the ranks of the silent complicit masses risks becoming a political prisoner.


On the more personal front, I am also a runner (and have been since I was a teen). In recent years, I become more serious about my running, and have done seven marathons (each of 26.2 miles). I heard about the Crazy Horse Marathon held each October in the Paha Sapa, and because of its location as well as my admiration for the warrior after whom it is named, immediately became interested. As you may know, the marathon takes place in the Paha Sapa, and used to be called the Black Hills Marathon. It is organized by Whites, and starts at the Crazy Horse Monument. I doubt very much that the race organizers or most of the participants realize the significance of the Paha to the Lakota. Or the fact that the Crazy Horse Monument itself—carved by a Polish man into the Black Hills—is an eyesore and a grave affront to many Native People.

I am considering running the race in Leonard’s name. I would wear a tee-shirt calling for his freedom, and use my participation in the event to call attention to his case and for a pardon for him (in keeping with the ongoing Jericho campaign). I would start the race with a prayer for him as well as for you, that Wakan Tanka give you strength in your fight against cancer.

But first, I wanted to ask you three questions:

1. Is it even appropriate to run through a sacred land, such as the Paha Sapa? Or should friends of Native people, like me, not participate at all in such an event?

2. IF it is not an affront to the Lakota for a non-Indian to run through the area, can you, as Pine Ridge Chairperson elect (I really think you would have won the election, had the playing field been level) give me permission to run there?

3. Alternatively, can you share this letter with the appropriate Lakota elders for their response? Basically I’m asking for a “visa” from Native People before I enter the area to run, as I believe all visitors to sacred Lakota land should do. Although I’ve trained hard for the marathon, I don't want to run it without the permission of the Lakota, so if it is not forthcoming, I will back out of the race.

I feel ashamed to trouble you with my personal requests in the time of your illness, so if you cannot help me, do not feel badly. I pray for your return to full health.

Thank you for your help.

In struggle and solidarity,
Nadrat Siddique

Sunday, July 17, 2011

More Reasons Why Not to Eat Pork

Sublime Qur'an Subsumes Science

As a Muslim and a marathoner, I eschew pork following Islamic guidelines on proscribed foods. This, like other Qur’anic injunctions, has helped me to avoid a plethora of health problems, to stay out of the doctor’s office, and to maintain a rigorous athletic regimen free of injury. Recently, I participated in an exchange with friends (and some of their friends) on a social networking site. A young black (Afrocentric) Towson University student—not a Muslim—was recommending to all of his friends not to eat pork. This is an increasingly common phenomenon among activists of color—even those who do not claim the label of Muslim (or who do not claim it openly). Some of these are directly influenced by Qur’anic teachings, by their Muslim friends, or by the writings of Elijah Muhammad such as How to Eat to Live.

Pork and pork products are a major source of health problems in the Black community. Historically, White slavers fed Black slaves chitterlings (or chitlins, for short) and other pork products. Chitterlings are the worse part of the pig--a reminder to the slave that he was lower than an animal, worthy only of eating the slave master’s rubbish. I was proud of my Towson University friend who had thrown off his mental shackles and encouraged others to do the same. But immediately many of his friends assailed his position. Pork is no more deleterious than beef or chicken; some parts of it are white meat and quite lean—and therefore worthy of consumption—they said. Pork is intrinsic to soul food, said others; how can we possibly do away with it? I knew that the instinctive revulsion I felt for pork mightn’t be shared by others, particularly those who were not Muslim, and so determined to find intellectual support for my feelings. Here are the initial findings of my inquiry, which I shared in the course of the online exchange:

Pork takes longer than most foods to digest (4.5 hr, according to some reports). One of the reasons for this: It is rich in residues of the amino acid Proline.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20356084

I'm guessing that the high incidence of Proline, which contains a hetercyclic ring, may be one reason for the difficulty in metabolizing pork. Unfortunately, lengthy retention of food—in this case pork—in a digestive tract that is relatively short (compared to that of most carnivores) leads to elevated colorectal cancer risk.

Additionally, prevalence of Staphyloccus aureus bacteria in pigs is relatively high (e.g., 25-30% in the Netherlands). In fact, locating swine populations not afflicted to some degree by the Staph species in question is highly unlikely.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=first-pork-invades-washington-then-2009-03-12

As a result, very high dosages of antibiotics are administered to most pig populations. So, consumers of pork are partaking of a product, which has been doused with antibiotics. And— by supporting the administration of antibiotics to this animal population, they are inadvertently contributing to the rise of drug-resistant strains of bacteria.

Staphylococcus aureus is thought to be carried by rats in a pig farm setting:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19523703

Unfortunately, the bacterium may be conveyed between the pig and rat population to humans:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19145257

So, the answer seems to be: Either administer massive dosages of antibiotics to pig populations (and then consume the antibiotic-laden pork products)--a strategy which may work in the short term, but has serious long-term implications for the production of drug-resistant strains of Staphyloccus aureus--or find other alternatives to pork products. While it's true that some cuts of pork contain a relatively low lipid content, comparable to those of beef or other meats, given all of the forgoing, as well as the dynamics of pork between White slavers and Black slave descendants, the choice of whether or not to partake of the pig seems rather obvious.

Wednesday, June 1, 2011

AIPAC Conference: An Exercise in Arm Twisting and Indoctrination

Zionist Lobby Seeks Billions More in U.S. Tax Dollars

The weekend of May 20 - 22 saw the annual conference of the American Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC) at the Washington, DC, Convention Center. It was a grand affair to which the 535 members of the U.S. Congress were “invited.” But such an invitation is seen by some as a pressure tactic. Conference attendees were recognized by a “Roll Call,” a lengthy public reading of their names. The implication is that no-shows will be noted for their absence in the next election. (According to Jewish Week, May 24, 2011, AIPAC was successful at drawing 10,000 delegates and “honored guests,” including 70 U.S. Senators and 270 members of the House to the conference.)

The goals of the conference, listed on the AIPAC website, included inculcating understanding among delegates of “how America and Israel are stronger together when they participate in joint military exercises and exchange intelligence” and “safer together when they share homeland security and counterterrorism techniques.”

“AIPAC has succeeded in creating an army of Israel supporters who are mobilised and constantly lobby elected senators,” wrote one AIPAC conference participant (Jewish Chronicle, May 26, 2011). Such militaristic lexicon, as well as AIPAC’s treatment of dissenters, has raised eyebrows, with some opponents of the lobby going so far as to say the AIPAC conference is a venue for exchanged allegiances among gangsters in Armani suits, the dissemination of Zionist propaganda, and the discussion of coercive and retributive measures to be used against those not willing to take a pro-Israel stance.

Special Session for Christian Zionists

The conference included a special luncheon for Black Zionists (and pro-Zionists), as well as a session for Christians, called "Understanding Christian Support for the Jewish State," geared at examining “the roots of Christian Zionism.” The latter targeted the sixty-six pastors in attendance.

Zionist Student Leaders in Attendance

The conference included a special session recognizing student Zionist leaders. One thousand five hundred (1,500) students, most of them white, attended the conference. These included 215 elected student government presidents (numbers from AIPAC’s website). The student government presidents came from campuses including the University of Chicago, UC Berkeley, Columbia, and Vanderbilt. Interestingly, Brigham Young University, a Mormon institution, and Morehouse College, a historically black college, also had Zionist student body presidents in attendance at AIPAC’s conference.

Zionist students from the University of Florida were awarded for “developing new models of pro-Israel leadership on and beyond their campus,” and for soliciting letters of support for Israel from campus leaders, as well as for lobbying local Congress members on “issues of concern to the pro-Israel community.” Additional student leaders at UCLA, Indiana University, the University of Oklahoma, and Liberty University received “Activist of the Year” awards in recognition of their pro-Israel political activity. The question of why they, as American students should expend such energies building support for a foreign power, seemed absent from the dialogue. One group of student Zionist leaders working on blackballing Iran to Congress was given an award. Another group of student Zionists were recognized for their efforts at countering the characterization of Israel as an apartheid state. Both the College Democrats of America and the College Republican National Committee received awards from AIPAC.

Gustafo Tactics Against a Sitting American President?

On May 19, just a few days before the AIPAC conference, President Obama mentioned 1967 borders as a starting point for co-existing Israeli and Palestinian states—a very weak position, and unacceptable to most Muslims who believe in self-determination. But apparently, even the slightest sign of “weakness” was not to be tolerated by the Zionists. On May 20, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu met with Obama for over two hours, and it is speculated, conducted the mafia-style arm twisting necessary to get his whipping boy back in order.

Obama at AIPAC

Then on May 22, Obama reported to the AIPAC conference, meekly telling the Zionist audience, “Israelis and Palestinians will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967.” Clarifying his position further, he said, “The bonds between the United States and Israel are unbreakable, and the commitment of the United States to the security of Israel is iron clad.” None in the wildly applauding audience asked the question of why any policy matter in a changing world should be characterized as immutable, nor why the security of a foreign power should be of such paramount importance to the U.S.

Obama further “affirmed U.S. opposition to a Palestinian plan to seek a vote in the U.N. General Assembly on Palestinian statehood in September. He vowed to help Israel defend itself, promising U.S. military assistance on missile defense and pledging to block Iranian nuclear aspirations. And he assailed a recent Palestinian unity agreement that elevated the stature of the Hamas movement, which the United States and Israel regard as a terrorist group.” (The Washington Post, May 22)

Netanyahu’s pressuring of Obama (if indeed that is what occurred—some would argue that Obama is already so pro-Israel that he needed no pressuring) is similar to AIPAC’s pressure on members of the U.S. Congress. As Cynthia McKinney, former U.S. Congresswoman from Georgia, recently disclosed, every candidate for U.S. Congress must sign a pledge to support Israel, a tactic which changed shape slightly after it was made public. According to McKinney, “They were given a pledge to sign...that had Jerusalem as the capital city. You make a commitment that you would vote to support the military superiority of Israel, and the economic assistance that Israel wants, that you would vote to provide that." (Press TV, May 22).

Obama delivered his address to AIPAC, then retreated to Europe with his tail between his legs. In the meantime, Netanyahu addressed the U.S. Congress on May 24. He delivered a resounding “No!” to all of the (very compromising) positions put out by “moderate” Palestinians. The speech was characterized by opponents as containing more lies per second than perhaps any other speech in recent memory. In the course of the 50 minute speech, Netanyahu received 26 standing ovations. Opponents protesting the speech were dealt with very brutally.

Following the AIPAC conference and Netanyahu’s speech to Congress, thousands of AIPAC lobbyists descended upon Capitol Hill to further the Zionist agenda. According to the AIPAC website, “At the top of the lobbying agenda is U.S. security assistance to Israel—the most tangible expression of American support for the Jewish state. The AIPAC citizen-lobbyists will urge their House and Senate members to support $3.075 billion in aid to Israel for fiscal year 2012 as well as ask for support for the overall foreign aid budget.” [Note the double speak in “Jewish state” and “AIPAC citizen-lobbyists”]

“Move Over AIPAC”: A Challenge to AIPAC

This year, as the AIPAC conference went forth, things were a little bit different. An entire weekend of activities, including a major conference, called “Move Over AIPAC” was held in Washington, DC, by CODE PINK: Women for Peace. It was endorsed by over 100 peace and justice organizations, including the International Solidarity Movement, Fellowship of the Reconciliation, the Rachel Corrie Foundation, United for Peace and Justice, the U.S. Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel, Adalah-NY, Jewish Voice for Peace, and the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation.

On May 20, as Netanyahu met Obama, “Move Over AIPAC” conference participants and others protested outside the White House. The following day, May 21, the “Move Over AIPAC” summit was held. The keynote address was delivered by Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, authors of the ground-breaking book, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. This was followed by a “writers’ salon,” featuring Laila El-Haddad and other Palestinian and pro-Palestinian authors. A panel entitled, “Time for a New Foreign Policy” (Phyllis Bennis, Noura Erekat, and others) ensued. Workshops on topics like “Combatting Misused Charges of Anti-Semitism” (Rabbi Lynn Gottleib); “Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions: Campaigns that Work!”; Exposing AIPAC: Delving into the Nitty-Gritty of How the Israel Lobby Works”; “Israel, the bomb, and a Mid-east NWFZ (Nuclear Weapons Free Zone); and “Student Divestment Campaigns and the Role of AIPAC on Campus” completed the afternoon.

On May 22, while Obama addressed AIPAC and throughout the day, “Move over AIPAC” participants, and other friends and supporters of Palestinians protested outside the Convention Center. The protestors, including many Jews, lined up outside the DC Convention center, chanting “Free Free Palestine.” A die-in—where activists lay down in the streets, their bodies covered in fake blood to protest Israeli brutality—was held. Activists from the U.S. Boat to Gaza manned a float in the form of a ship, singing pro-Palestinian songs.

Change Comes But not Without Sacrifice and Struggle

As a result of the immense sacrifices of the Palestinian people, followed up by creative and heroic actions by a huge range of human rights and solidarity organizations throughout the world—of which “Move Over AIPAC” is an example—support for Israel is being reconsidered in the U.S., one of the last bastions of Zionist support.

As Jody McIntyre, describing the AIPAC conference, wrote in the Independent on May 24, 2011, “So yesterday, another conference commenced; a celebration of continued US support for Israel. The fact that is being ignored is that, as a wave of uprisings across northern Africa and western Asia are proving, US dominance and influence in the region is on the decline. Just like hundreds of millions of dollars in aid were not enough to keep Mubarak in power in Egypt, all the billions of dollars in aid will not be enough to prop up Israel forever….As Olof Palme, the Prime Minister of Sweden until his assassination in 1986, once said, ‘Apartheid cannot be reformed, it must be abolished.’”

Sunday, May 22, 2011

DC Activists Commemorate Malcolm X Day

Discussions of Marable’s Book: Scholarship or Smear Attempt?

Malcolm X Day, which commemorates the birth of the great Muslim leader, is an event ordinarily commemorated by leftists and black nationalists. Seldom does one see a remembrance of this brother, who made Islam and its revolutionary spirit beloved among vast numbers of Americans, at any mainstream mosque or Islamic Center, even for symbolic purposes. This year however, Muslims were among the organizers of events on May 17 – 18 to commemorate the occasion.

Around thirty people crowded into Ras Café (Ethiopian Restaurant & Lounge) for the May 17 event. Malcolm Shabazz, the son of Shaheed Malcolm X, was originally scheduled to speak, but did not make it to Washington, DC. Instead, he delegated Br. Shaka to speak in his place. Also speaking was J.R. Valrey of California’s Block Radio (www.blockreportradio.com). In spite of Shabazz’s absence, people seemed to appreciate the program.

Another 40 or so filled the seats at Sankofa Books the following night to hear J.R. and Malcolm Shabazz, who was, by then, in town.

According to Naji Mujahid, a lead organizer for both events, much of the focus of Malcolm X Day 2011 was on the recently released book, Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention, by Manning Marable. “Manning Marable’s book is considered by some to be a slander,” said Mujahid. “We tried to provide a platform to dispel points in Manning Marable book.”

J.R. shared an excerpt from his own book where he’d interviewed Hajj Malcolm Shabazz. Addressing the Sankofa audience, the younger Malcolm analogized the Marable book with the Bible. “Like the Bible, shrouding lies in truth,” Marable’s work probably contained good points and analysis to draw people in, but it also contained some slanderous lies, Shabazz said.

Parts of the book suggest that Malcolm engaged in homosexual acts. Others suggest infidelity between Malcolm and Betty Shabazz. Another important was brought up by Voxunion producer and Morgan State University professor of communications, Dr. Jared Ball in a conversation with Mujahid. Ball pointed out that Marable claimed that Malcolm, in his later years, said that the ballot could be used to promote black people's interests and that the election of Barak Obama was an expression of that. Ball also compared Marable’s book to Spike Lee’s “X.”

Some of the more controversial points in the Marable book were devoid of reference, according to J.R. The book wasn’t aimed only at current audiences, but also to future ones, who didn’t remember Malcolm. And, as an attendee of the Ras Café event pointed out, the further removed in time an audience was from the discussion, the less likely they were to dispute points in the book.

And, as Br. Shaka pointed out, the tenuousness of Marable’s claims are evident from the fact that if the allegations against Malcolm were true, the FBI wouldn’t have missed the opportunity to use them against him.

Despite an exhaustive week of activities around Malcolm’s Birthday and political prisoner awareness work, Naji Mujahid, who is also an organizer for the Black August Planning Organization (BAPO), granted me an extended interview. (BAPO is a political prisoner advocacy group, primarily focusing on Black political prisoners held by the United States for some of the longest periods of any U.S. political prisoner.)

“I think it’s important for people everywhere to see Malcolm not only as exemplary of Blackness, but of Islam, and the ability of Islam to affect people, particularly those living under adverse conditions everywhere. Islam can provide the inspiration in people to allow them to rise above their circumstances. I think Malcolm is an excellent example of that.”

“Malcolm was certainly an exceptional figure. However, he wasn’t the only exceptional figure who developed out of that period. While they were alive, people weren’t big on following Malcolm, Martin, or many of the personalities who dominate our history, according to some elders I’ve spoken with. Now that it’s safe to do so, they elevate him to the level they do. Part of the reason why Malcolm has taken on this epic legacy is because he was assassinated. If he had lived, and been brought in on trumped up charges like Eddie Conway, or other political prisoners, he probably wouldn’t hold the stature he does. People should consider when they idolize Malcolm that others, such as Sekou Odinga, who worked with Malcolm in the OAAU [Organization of Afro-American Unity], who have been buried alive, don’t enjoy his fame and acknowledgement. You ask people about Odinga, and they say “Who’s he?” [Sekou Odinga is a Muslim and New Afrikan political prisoner, imprisoned on political charges, since 1983].

“Malcolm and Martin’s family haven’t enjoyed the material support which should correspond to their level of celebrity. If Malcolm’s family had a dollar for every t-shirt created to exploit his memory, they would be in a lot better position.”

“People who claim to love Malcolm should put it to some use. They could, if they wished, tell this government, ‘You killed Malcolm, but we’re not going to allow you to practice a slow death against Sekou Odinga, Eddie Conway, Veronza Bowers, and others.’”

Thursday, May 12, 2011

American Muslims, the Osama Assassination, and the “We Sick Massa” Syndrome

I’ve been thinking about the bizarre reactions across the Muslim community to the Osama assassination. The only viable explanation for Muslims and Muslim organizations endorsing an action which clearly violates International law, Pakistani sovereignty (the puppet Pakistani government’s signing away of Pakistani sovereignty notwithstanding), and the norms of human decency, and for Muslims endorsing such an action (or coming up with creative explanations for it and its target) is the presence of a deep-seated self-hatred in the American Muslim psyche. Muslims here can't seem to accept the fact that highly effective, organized, and disciplined Muslim opposition can—in the face of grave injustice and genocide--arise. They must write off Osama to other factors: he didn't really exist; he existed but he was a CIA operative; he existed but only up till two years, no wait, make that eight years ago; he existed but was on summer vacation for the last five years in Pakistan, and so the fairy stories go. It's getting to the point of hilarity.

Why not just ask the Saudi government (Osama's enemy is not likely to embellish his character or motives), or consult U.S. intelligence (with which some American Muslim leaders are sufficiently mated that they might easily acquire the inside scoop on this) as to whether or not he existed, and if he did, who, if anyone, was paying him, how much, and when?

I wonder why it is that we, politically-conscious Muslims and friends, can see through the lies of the government and its corporate media organs about Katrina. We see through their lies about the Black Panther Party, George Jackson, and Assata. We see through their lies about Kuwaiti incubator babies, WMDs, DU (depleted uranium) and anything else that stands in the way of the oil/U.S. hegemony in the Middle East. We are even beginning to see through some of their lies on Palestine. But, when it comes to Osama, we accept their (White House, Pentagon, and corporate media's) version of things about this man, and try to come up with oddball theories to convince ourselves that the Muslim world could not have produced the "monster" they say Osama was. We act as if we are certain that the government is telling the truth on this one, and our basic premises (about his CIA links etc) spring from hence.

I don't claim to know all (or even most of) the answers. But a bit of independent journalism or analytical thinking on this would be a delightful change.