Find a show you like and click the 
button. The show will be added to your My Playlist page and updated 24/7 with new videos.
Search Results
2 Views
02:00:00 05/25/12
Kathleen Martin:Peace, Love and Injustice in Sierra Leone
[LESS INFO] 2 VIEWS | ADDED 02:00:00 05/25/12
Liberia's former president Charles Taylor's recent conviction for crimes against humanity in Sierra Leone brings an end to a dark chapter in the country's history. Journalist and author Kathleen Martin spent time in Sierra Leone before writing her book "Kamakwie." She joins Steve Paikin to look at the effects of Taylor's crimes on the people of the African nation.
10 Views
00:00:35 01/05/12
Occupy Wall Street Media Team Evicted From Rented Studio, 6 Arrested
[LESS INFO] 10 VIEWS | ADDED 00:00:35 01/05/12
If you had any remaining doubt that we're now living in a police state here in the U.S., what happened early this morning at the Occupy Wall Street Livestream office should make it painfully clear.
Ever since September 17th, 2011 and Zuccotti Park, Global Revolution Media has been a large supplier of the media coverage has been covering the Occupy Wall Street movement both here in the U.S. and internationally, providing followers of the movement with raw video footage and keeping their viewers informed.
Monitoring livestreams coming across the internet, the media team picks the best ones for rebroadcast. This small team of dedicated media broadcasters serving the Occupy movement makes finding information quick and easy, making following a plethora of events and breaking occupy news possible for followers. The Global Revolution media team operated out of a leased studio office at 13 Thames Street in Brooklyn, but continuing to do so is in doubt at this time, and the future of the operation in jeopardy.
Via Liberating Flames : >
Earlier this morning, Global Revolution Studios was ordered to vacate from their building by the NYPD in conjunction with the building department. It took three separate departments visiting 13 Thames to finally come up with a reason to remove the Global Revolution team with a posted notice despite having all applicable paperwork for the department of buildings in order. The reason given to me by the Global Revolution team is “A made up sprinkler condition.” Supporting this allegation of falsified conditions is that the very same building passed the same inspection standards back in 2011 in the month of November with no comments or concerns as to the buildings integrity or its sprinkler system.
It’s also odd how the first floor and cellar is imminently perilous to human life, and the floors directly above are perfectly fine. Even the person living illegally in the basement is perfectly fine where he is, meaning it’s specifically the area that Global Rev occupies and nothing else. One could accurately allege that this was a direct attack against one of the major voices of the movement and considering Global Revolutions direct affiliation with the Occupy movement; has made it an obvious target for this attack on free speech. The overreaching plan of these actions has been to suppress the ability of Occupy to communicate and to share the movements’ collective stories as they unfurl. By being a nexus of streams and information, authorities are attempting to do a top-down decapitation of the movements’ media coverage by once again isolating the information to the general public.
Six key members of the team were arrested at the Thames Street location, "charged with Trespass, Obstructing Governmental Administration and Resisting Arrest. They are likely to remain in jail overnight," according to Global Revolution's TV blog .
“We can do all of this from laptops”—Vlad Teichberg, GlobalRevolution.TV, after the #OccupyWallStreet and international live news protest channel was evicted from its NYC base .
Thames Street isn't the first home occupied by Global Revolution, and doubtful it would be it's last. In the beginning, activist Vlad Teichberg of Global Revolutiona worked in a small, dark, second-floor room in a clapped-out building on Lafayette at Bleecker. (His neighbors include the War Resisters League, the Socialist Party USA, and the Libertarian Book Club.) This is the original home office of globalrevolution.tv, which channels vérité video from occupations around the world through hosting sites such as Livestream.com .
Via NYMag : >
Teichberg is a 39-year-old Russian immigrant with stooped shoulders and a mop of brown hair who grew up in Rego Park and is so jacked in to the electronic grid that he comes across like a character out of Neuromancer. But what makes him so interesting is that you could just as easily imagine him making a cameo in The Big Short. A math prodigy who was a Westinghouse Science Talent Search finalist before matriculating at Princeton, he left college (temporarily) after his sophomore year and went to work for Bankers Trust, the first in a string of Wall Street gigs at firms including Deutsche Bank, Swiss Reinsurance Corp., and HSBC. And what did he do in those places? He created, modeled, and traded derivatives, including some of the first synthetic CDOs. As he told the London Times, he was “one of the people [who] built that bomb that blew up the whole economy.”
Teichberg’s time in the Wall Street armament factory gave him a close-up view of everything wrong with the place: the culture of greed, the insane levels of risk, the corruption of the credit-rating agencies. “By 2001, it was obvious to me it was going to blow up,” he says, “and I wanted to be nowhere near it.” But he didn’t leave. Instead, hopping from job to job, he tried to put brakes on the process, devising new ways to value risk more accurately, only to be rebuffed by his bosses. At the same time he starting taking the money he was making on Wall Street and funding ways to undermine it.
More via SuperChief : >
A resident has confirmed 5 arrested, one of whom is Vlad Teichberg operator of the livestream. He also claims that police damaged camera equipment upon entering the building Tuesday afternoon.
...
Residents are reporting to Superchief that they suspect the order to vacate is a targeted attack – likely towards a Global Rev organizer Vlad Teichberg, and his 4-month pregnant wife. They report that they were able to remove an 800 pound server containing their video archives and their important documents last night.
Police did not specifically issue an order to vacate last night. Rather, they are enforcing a year-old order to vacate – which may or may not be selectively enforced now based on the Occupy presence in the space.
Those arrested were first taken to Central Booking on Centre Street, and are now at the 90th Precinct in Brooklyn at at Union St and Montrose Avenue.
Will update as more information becomes available...
Update 1 : Video footage of the police arrests show that no one from Global Revolution was "resisting arrest" as claimed. Arrests begin around 4 minutes into the video, and continue until the end when with no reason given NYPD arrest 2 people who were down the street observing on the sidewalk, view here .
Update 2: See the post here .
17 Views
00:00:35 01/05/12
Occupy Wall Street Media Team Evicted From Rented Studio, 6 Arrested
[LESS INFO] 17 VIEWS | ADDED 00:00:35 01/05/12
If you had any remaining doubt that we're now living in a police state here in the U.S., what happened early this morning at the Occupy Wall Street Livestream office should make it painfully clear.
Ever since September 17th, 2011 and Zuccotti Park, Global Revolution Media has been a large supplier of the media coverage has been covering the Occupy Wall Street movement both here in the U.S. and internationally, providing followers of the movement with raw video footage and keeping their viewers informed.
Monitoring livestreams coming across the internet, the media team picks the best ones for rebroadcast. This small team of dedicated media broadcasters serving the Occupy movement makes finding information quick and easy, making following a plethora of events and breaking occupy news possible for followers. The Global Revolution media team operated out of a leased studio office at 13 Thames Street in Brooklyn, but continuing to do so is in doubt at this time, and the future of the operation in jeopardy.
Via Liberating Flames : >
Earlier this morning, Global Revolution Studios was ordered to vacate from their building by the NYPD in conjunction with the building department. It took three separate departments visiting 13 Thames to finally come up with a reason to remove the Global Revolution team with a posted notice despite having all applicable paperwork for the department of buildings in order. The reason given to me by the Global Revolution team is “A made up sprinkler condition.” Supporting this allegation of falsified conditions is that the very same building passed the same inspection standards back in 2011 in the month of November with no comments or concerns as to the buildings integrity or its sprinkler system.
It’s also odd how the first floor and cellar is imminently perilous to human life, and the floors directly above are perfectly fine. Even the person living illegally in the basement is perfectly fine where he is, meaning it’s specifically the area that Global Rev occupies and nothing else. One could accurately allege that this was a direct attack against one of the major voices of the movement and considering Global Revolutions direct affiliation with the Occupy movement; has made it an obvious target for this attack on free speech. The overreaching plan of these actions has been to suppress the ability of Occupy to communicate and to share the movements’ collective stories as they unfurl. By being a nexus of streams and information, authorities are attempting to do a top-down decapitation of the movements’ media coverage by once again isolating the information to the general public.
Six key members of the team were arrested at the Thames Street location, "charged with Trespass, Obstructing Governmental Administration and Resisting Arrest. They are likely to remain in jail overnight," according to Global Revolution's TV blog .
“We can do all of this from laptops”—Vlad Teichberg, GlobalRevolution.TV, after the #OccupyWallStreet and international live news protest channel was evicted from its NYC base .
Thames Street isn't the first home occupied by Global Revolution, and doubtful it would be it's last. In the beginning, activist Vlad Teichberg of Global Revolutiona worked in a small, dark, second-floor room in a clapped-out building on Lafayette at Bleecker. (His neighbors include the War Resisters League, the Socialist Party USA, and the Libertarian Book Club.) This is the original home office of globalrevolution.tv, which channels vérité video from occupations around the world through hosting sites such as Livestream.com .
Via NYMag : >
Teichberg is a 39-year-old Russian immigrant with stooped shoulders and a mop of brown hair who grew up in Rego Park and is so jacked in to the electronic grid that he comes across like a character out of Neuromancer. But what makes him so interesting is that you could just as easily imagine him making a cameo in The Big Short. A math prodigy who was a Westinghouse Science Talent Search finalist before matriculating at Princeton, he left college (temporarily) after his sophomore year and went to work for Bankers Trust, the first in a string of Wall Street gigs at firms including Deutsche Bank, Swiss Reinsurance Corp., and HSBC. And what did he do in those places? He created, modeled, and traded derivatives, including some of the first synthetic CDOs. As he told the London Times, he was “one of the people [who] built that bomb that blew up the whole economy.”
Teichberg’s time in the Wall Street armament factory gave him a close-up view of everything wrong with the place: the culture of greed, the insane levels of risk, the corruption of the credit-rating agencies. “By 2001, it was obvious to me it was going to blow up,” he says, “and I wanted to be nowhere near it.” But he didn’t leave. Instead, hopping from job to job, he tried to put brakes on the process, devising new ways to value risk more accurately, only to be rebuffed by his bosses. At the same time he starting taking the money he was making on Wall Street and funding ways to undermine it.
More via SuperChief : >
A resident has confirmed 5 arrested, one of whom is Vlad Teichberg operator of the livestream. He also claims that police damaged camera equipment upon entering the building Tuesday afternoon.
...
Residents are reporting to Superchief that they suspect the order to vacate is a targeted attack – likely towards a Global Rev organizer Vlad Teichberg, and his 4-month pregnant wife. They report that they were able to remove an 800 pound server containing their video archives and their important documents last night.
Police did not specifically issue an order to vacate last night. Rather, they are enforcing a year-old order to vacate – which may or may not be selectively enforced now based on the Occupy presence in the space.
Those arrested were first taken to Central Booking on Centre Street, and are now at the 90th Precinct in Brooklyn at at Union St and Montrose Avenue.
Will update as more information becomes available...
Update 1 : Video footage of the police arrests show that no one from Global Revolution was "resisting arrest" as claimed. Arrests begin around 4 minutes into the video, and continue until the end when with no reason given NYPD arrest 2 people who were down the street observing on the sidewalk, view here .
Update 2: See the post here .
9 Views
17:00:55 12/21/11
Gingrich Just the Latest Republican to Threaten Judges
[LESS INFO] 9 VIEWS | ADDED 17:00:55 12/21/11
"Judicial activism" is in the eye of the beholder. Threatening judges is not. That explains why even Michael Mukasey and Alberto Gonzales , former Bush Attorneys General and ardent defenders of detainee torture and illicit domestic surveillance, denounced Newt Gingrich's assault on the federal bench as "dangerous, ridiculous, totally irresponsible, outrageous, off-the-wall and would reduce the entire judicial system to a spectacle." Sadly, Gingrich has plenty of company among conservatives threatening judges. As the dangerous rhetoric of John Cornyn, Tom Delay and a host of other Republican officeholders and propagandists shows, judicial intimidation is now standard fare for many of the leading lights of the GOP.
On Face the Nation Sunday, Gingrich the fading frontrunner told CBS News host Bob Schieffer he wouldn't hesitate to send the Capitol police or U.S. marshals to round up judges with whom he disagreed and force them to respond to subpoenas. As McClatchy reported Saturday: >
In order to restore balance between Congress, the White House, and the courts, Gingrich recommended ignoring rulings, impeaching judges, subpoenaing justices to have them explain their rulings and, as a last resort, abolishing the courts altogether... >
"I was frankly just fed up with elitist judges imposing secularism on the country and fundamentally changing the American Constitution," Gingrich told reporters, adding that "it was clear to me that you have a judicial psychology run amok, and there has to be some method of bringing balance back to the three branches."
During the height of the Terri Schiavo controversy in 2005, some Republican leaders darkly suggested what one of those methods might be.
Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), himself a former Texas Supreme Court Justice, has been at the forefront of GOP advocacy of violence towards members of the bench whose rulings part ways with conservative orthodoxy. Back in 2005, Cornyn was one of the GOP standard bearers in the conservative fight against so-called "judicial activism" in the wake of the Republicans' disastrous intervention in the Terri Schiavo affair . On April 4th, Cornyn took to the Senate floor to issue a not-too-thinly veiled threat to judges opposing his reactionary agenda. Just days after the murders of judge in Atlanta and another's family members in Chicago, Cornyn offered his endorsement of judicial intimidation: >
"I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection, but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country...And I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters, on some occasions, where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in, engage in violence."
Facing criticism for his remarks seemingly endorsing right-wing retribution against judges, Cornyn held his ground . "I didn't make the link," he said on Fox News Sunday, adding with a note of sarcasm: >
"It was taken out of context. I regret it was taken out of context and misinterpreted."
As it turns out, Cornyn was merely echoing the words of the soon-to-be indicted House Majority Leader Tom Delay. On March 31st, Delay issued a statement regarding the consistent rulings in favor of Michael Schiavo by all federal and state court judges involved: >
"The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior, but not today."
The impact of tacit conservative endorsement of violence against judges cannot be dismissed. After all, it extends to members of the Supreme Court of the United States. In March 2006, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg revealed that she and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor were the targets of death threats . On February 28th, 2005, the marshal of the Court informed O'Connor and Ginsburg of an Internet posting citing their references to international law in Court decisions (a frequent whipping boy of the right) as requiring their assassination: >
"This is a huge threat to our Republic and Constitutional freedom...If you are what you say you are, and NOT armchair patriots, then those two justices will not live another week."
Neither O'Connor nor Ginsburg are shy about making the connection between Republican rhetoric of judicial intimidation and the upswing in threats and actual violence against judges. Ginsburg noted that they "fuel the irrational fringe" O'Connor blamed Cornyn and his fellow travelers for "creating a culture" in which violence towards judges is merely another political tactic: >
"It gets worse. It doesn't help when a high-profile senator suggests a 'cause-and-effect connection' [between controversial rulings and subsequent acts of violence.]"
When anthrax spores were mailed to the Supreme Court in 2001, Americans could be forgiven for speculating on the ideological persuasion of the culprit. Aided by best-selling conservative author and media personality Ann Coulter , who joked in January 2006, "We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' creme brulee," the right-wing endorsement of retribution against judges increasingly permeates the culture.
Just ask Judge Reggie Walton. A federal judge on the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Walton was picked by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to serve on the FISA court which must approve government requests for domestic electronic surveillance. But when Dick Cheney's chief-of-staff Scooter Libby was convicted in his court in 2007, Judge Walton received death threats : >
"I received a number of angry, harassing mean-spirited phone calls and letters. Some of those were wishing bad things on me and my family."
One of those seemingly wishing bad things on judges is Montana Republican Congressman Denny Rehberg . Just weeks after the Tucson slaughter that claimed the life of circuit judge John Roll , Rehberg responded to a recent ruling by declaring he wanted to " put some of these judicial activists on the Endangered Species list ": >
"Environmental obstructionists found a federal judge in Missoula that was willing to ignore the scientific evidence as well as the expert opinions of on-the-ground wildlife managers here in Montana. And he ruled last August that the grey wolf had to remain on the Endangered Species List.! >
When I first heard his decision, like many of you I wanted to take action immediately. I asked: how can we put some of these judicial activists on the Endangered Species List? I am still working on that!"
As are, in myriad other ways, many of his GOP allies. By proposing to abolish the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals , Newt Gingrich was hardly the first Republican to call for simply ending jurisdiction for the federal courts across a broad swath of issues. Even after the calamitous intervention in the Schiavo imbroglio, conservative stalwarts continued to turn to "court-stripping" as a favorite tactic. As the Eagle Forum's Phyllis Schlafly put it in 2006, "The American people are waiting for this year's Congress to pass legislation defining the jurisdiction of the federal courts so that supremacist judges will not be able to ban the Pledge of Allegiance, the Ten Commandments, the Boy Scouts, or the traditional definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman." On terror detainees, the EPA's regulation of greenhouse gases and so much more, Republicans want eliminate the prospect of future rulings with which they might disagree.
In 2008, former Supreme Court Justice and Reagan appointee Sandra Day O'Connor wrote, "What worries me is the manner in which politically motivated interest groups are attempting to interfere with justice." As O'Connor explained the next year to Jon Stewart of The Daily Show , that threat prompted her to launch a new online civics education project: >
"Well, what I became aware of increasingly in those last years was all the criticism of judges across America. We heard a lot in Congress and in state legislature. We heard a lot about "activist judges," didn't we? "Secular, godless humanists trying to tell us all what to do." I mean, that was what we were hearing. And I just didn't see it that way, and I thought perhaps a lot of Americans had stopped understanding about the three branches of government."
Americans, that is, like Newt Gingrich and many of his friends in the Republican Party.
(This piece also appears at Perrspectives .)
77 Views
17:30:42 09/01/11
The Confederacy Politics Behind the Slave Trade
[LESS INFO] 77 VIEWS | ADDED 17:30:42 09/01/11
Pulitzer Prize-winning author and historian Gordon Wood explains that while the end of the international slave trade is commonly viewed as the first step towards abolition, it actually served to bolster the domestic slave trade. Wood argues that the Confederacy included an embargo against international slave trading in its constitution, perhaps in a political move to pressure states into joining them.
Complete video at: http://fora.tv/conference/chq_2011_video_sampler
In collaboration with Colonial Williamsburg Foundation and the Smithsonian's National Museum of African American History and Culture The sesquicentennial of the Civil War in 2011 offers an opportunity to rethink its significance with regard to the evolution of U.S. society, American identity, and race. Focusing on the path to the Civil War, what issues, confronted but unsolved by our nation's founders, led within less than a century to war between the states and challenged the young country's very survival? Character-interpreters, storytellers, historians, and present-day experts will illumine the controversies and tensions that led to the Civil War and will reflect on how these issues continue to shape our society today. - Chautauqua Institution
Gordon S. Wood is Alva O. Way University Professor and Professor of History Emeritus at Brown University. He taught at Harvard University and the University of Michigan before joining the faculty at Brown in 1969.
Wood is the author of The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787, which won the Bancroft Prize and the John H. Dunning Prize in 1970, and The Radicalism of the American Revolution, which won the Pulitzer Prize for History and the Ralph Waldo Emerson Prize in 1993. The Americanization of Benjamin Franklin (2004) was awarded the Julia Ward Howe Prize by the Boston Authors Club in 2005. His latest books are Revolutionary Characters: What Made the Founders Different, The Purpose of the Past: Reflections on the Uses of History and Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic, 1789-1815.
1 Views
00:30:16 03/20/11
Video: Martinez wins some, loses some in first session
[LESS INFO] 1 VIEWS | ADDED 00:30:16 03/20/11
lawmakers have wrapped up their sixty day session at noon today-- handing governor martinez a mixed bag of victories and defeats on her ambitious agenda. stuart dyson is live at the capitol with a look at the last flurry of action. a long legislative session is like baseball season - there's a lot of games and you can't win 'em all - and now new mexico's first-ever woman governor has learned that first-hand - she won some - she lost some - and there's always next year. when the hammer came down at the end of the session three of the governor's key bills lay dead on the floor - no more drivers licenses for illlegal immigrants - teacher evaluations - and ending social promotion in the schools - martinez blaming senate majority leader michael sanchez for that last one. " senator sanchez refused to let the senate hear this critical bill - unfortunately senator sanchez chose to play politics with our children's future." sanchez firing back. " when you come in to a legislative session saying this is the only way we're gonna do it - i don't think that's the right way to approach the legislature or legislation." martinez claiming victory for a stronger katie's law - d-n-a samples from people arrested for felonies - and grading schools a through f - the governor vowing to keep on fighting for the rest of her education reform bills. " we want to fight for making sure that social promotion and teacher evaluation are two laws that are imposed so that we can continue to improve on the education that we deliver to our kids." many of the departing lawmakers told me they're actually looking forward to next year. " there was learning on both sides - we learned her style - she learned our history - methods - traditions - culture - whatever - and so between the two i think in the future we'll have better working accommodations." at the end of the day there's a state budget that los like it'll balance - that's the one absolutely essential job the lawmakers and the governor had to get done - and they got it done - at the capitol stuart dyson k-o-b eyewitness news four. one thing that died in the final minutes of the session was the pork bill--- the capital outlay spending bill for projects back in all the house and senate districts around the state. a republican filibuster killed the bill in the final hour. republicans took the floor in debate and held it by talking nonstop to run out the clock. it was payback for democrats who wouldn't let the governor's social promotion bill come up for a vote. the pork bill totalled 240- million dollars in severance tax money earmarked for onetime projects -- not recurring expenses in the stats regular operations budget. also at the roundhouse today -- a bill we've followed that would require mandatory crisis training for new mexico's law enforcement... is on the governor's desk. if governor martinez signs the bill into law, it will require ten hours of crisis intervention training for cadets, and an annual refresher course for existing officers. the family of kenneth ellis the third was pushing for the bill's passage. ellis is an iraq war veteran killed by a-p-d while holding a gun to his head last year. his family says current crisis training isn't enough. and the ball now lies in governor martinez's court. she's said she will sign some bills on her desk-- and will not allow others to become law. she has 20 days to make her decisions, and you can count on kob eyewitness news 4 to bring you the very latest. right now
37 Views
00:55:27 01/01/11
Sam Harris: Can Science Determine Human Values?
[LESS INFO] 37 VIEWS | ADDED 00:55:27 01/01/11
Atheist author and cultural critic Sam Harris discusses his book, The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values. This program was recorded in collaboration with Berkeley Arts and Letters, on November 10, 2010.
In this highly anticipated, explosive new book, the author of The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation calls for an end to religion's monopoly on morality and human values. In The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values, Sam Harris tears down the wall between scientific facts and human values to dismantle the most common justification for religious faith -- that a moral system cannot be based on science.
The End of Faith ignited a worldwide debate about the validity of religion. In its aftermath, Harris discovered that most people, from secular scientists to religious fundamentalists, agree on one point: Science has nothing to say on the subject of human values. Even among religious fundamentalists, the defense one most often hears for belief in God is not that there is compelling evidence that God exists, but that faith in Him provides the only guidance for living a good life. Controversies about human values are controversies about which science has officially had no opinion. Until now.
Bringing a fresh, secular perspective to age-old questions of right and wrong, and good and evil, Harris shows that we know enough about the human brain and its relationship to events in the world to say that there are right and wrong answers to the most pressing questions of human life. Because such answers exist, cultural relativism is simply false -- and comes at increasing cost to humanity. And just as there is no such thing as Christian physics or Muslim algebra, there can be no Christian or Muslim morality. Using his expertise in philosophy and neuroscience, along with his experience on the front lines of our "culture wars," Sam Harris delivers a game-changing argument about the future of science and about the real basis of human cooperation. - Berkeley Arts and Letters
Sam Harris is an American non-fiction author, and CEO of Project Reason. He received a Ph.D. in neuroscience from UCLA, and is a graduate in philosophy from Stanford University. He has studied both Eastern and Western religious traditions, along with a variety of contemplative disciplines, for twenty years. He is a proponent of scientific skepticism and is the author of The End of Faith (2004), which won the 2005 PEN/Martha Albrand Award, Letter to a Christian Nation (2006), a rejoinder to criticism of his first book, and The Moral Landscape (2010).
35 Views
00:55:27 01/01/11
Sam Harris: Can Science Determine Human Values?
[LESS INFO] 35 VIEWS | ADDED 00:55:27 01/01/11
Atheist author and cultural critic Sam Harris discusses his book, The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values. This program was recorded in collaboration with Berkeley Arts and Letters, on November 10, 2010.
In this highly anticipated, explosive new book, the author of The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation calls for an end to religion's monopoly on morality and human values. In The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values, Sam Harris tears down the wall between scientific facts and human values to dismantle the most common justification for religious faith -- that a moral system cannot be based on science.
The End of Faith ignited a worldwide debate about the validity of religion. In its aftermath, Harris discovered that most people, from secular scientists to religious fundamentalists, agree on one point: Science has nothing to say on the subject of human values. Even among religious fundamentalists, the defense one most often hears for belief in God is not that there is compelling evidence that God exists, but that faith in Him provides the only guidance for living a good life. Controversies about human values are controversies about which science has officially had no opinion. Until now.
Bringing a fresh, secular perspective to age-old questions of right and wrong, and good and evil, Harris shows that we know enough about the human brain and its relationship to events in the world to say that there are right and wrong answers to the most pressing questions of human life. Because such answers exist, cultural relativism is simply false -- and comes at increasing cost to humanity. And just as there is no such thing as Christian physics or Muslim algebra, there can be no Christian or Muslim morality. Using his expertise in philosophy and neuroscience, along with his experience on the front lines of our "culture wars," Sam Harris delivers a game-changing argument about the future of science and about the real basis of human cooperation. - Berkeley Arts and Letters
Sam Harris is an American non-fiction author, and CEO of Project Reason. He received a Ph.D. in neuroscience from UCLA, and is a graduate in philosophy from Stanford University. He has studied both Eastern and Western religious traditions, along with a variety of contemplative disciplines, for twenty years. He is a proponent of scientific skepticism and is the author of The End of Faith (2004), which won the 2005 PEN/Martha Albrand Award, Letter to a Christian Nation (2006), a rejoinder to criticism of his first book, and The Moral Landscape (2010).
47 Views
02:45:17 12/22/10
'We Find Genocides Boring': Sam Harris on Moral Illusions
[LESS INFO] 47 VIEWS | ADDED 02:45:17 12/22/10
Complete video at: http://fora.tv/2010/11/10/Sam_Harris_Can_Science_Determine_Human_Values
Author Sam Harris explains that despite humanity's general desire to be moral, our ethical compasses and biases frequently produce "moral illusions." As an example, Harris points to the developed world's neglect of genocide in regions like Darfur. "We find genocides boring," he says.
-----
In this highly anticipated, explosive new book, the author of The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation calls for an end to religion's monopoly on morality and human values. In The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values, Sam Harris tears down the wall between scientific facts and human values to dismantle the most common justification for religious faith -- that a moral system cannot be based on science.
The End of Faith ignited a worldwide debate about the validity of religion. In its aftermath, Harris discovered that most people, from secular scientists to religious fundamentalists, agree on one point: Science has nothing to say on the subject of human values. Even among religious fundamentalists, the defense one most often hears for belief in God is not that there is compelling evidence that God exists, but that faith in Him provides the only guidance for living a good life. Controversies about human values are controversies about which science has officially had no opinion. Until now.
Morality, Harris argues, is actually an undeveloped branch of neuroscience, and answers to questions of human value can be visualized on a "moral landscape" -- a space of real and potential outcomes whose peaks and valleys correspond to human states of greater or lesser wellbeing. Different ways of thinking and behaving -- different cultural practices, ethical codes, modes of government, etc. -- translate into movements across this landscape. Such changes can be analyzed objectively on many levels, ranging from biochemistry to economics, but they have their crucial realization as experiences in the human brain.
Bringing a fresh, secular perspective to age-old questions of right and wrong, and good and evil, Harris shows that we know enough about the human brain and its relationship to events in the world to say that there are right and wrong answers to the most pressing questions of human life. Because such answers exist, cultural relativism is simply false -- and comes at increasing cost to humanity. And just as there is no such thing as Christian physics or Muslim algebra, there can be no Christian or Muslim morality. Using his expertise in philosophy and neuroscience, along with his experience on the front lines of our "culture wars," Sam Harris delivers a game-changing argument about the future of science and about the real basis of human cooperation. - Berkeley Arts and Letters
Sam Harris is an American non-fiction author, and CEO of Project Reason. He received a Ph.D. in neuroscience from UCLA, and is a graduate in philosophy from Stanford University. He has studied both Eastern and Western religious traditions, along with a variety of contemplative disciplines, for twenty years. He is a proponent of scientific skepticism and is the author of The End of Faith (2004), which won the 2005 PEN/Martha Albrand Award, Letter to a Christian Nation (2006), a rejoinder to criticism of his first book, and The Moral Landscape (2010).
86 Views
02:45:17 12/22/10
'We Find Genocides Boring': Sam Harris on Moral Illusions
[LESS INFO] 86 VIEWS | ADDED 02:45:17 12/22/10
Complete video at: http://fora.tv/2010/11/10/Sam_Harris_Can_Science_Determine_Human_Values
Author Sam Harris explains that despite humanity's general desire to be moral, our ethical compasses and biases frequently produce "moral illusions." As an example, Harris points to the developed world's neglect of genocide in regions like Darfur. "We find genocides boring," he says.
-----
In this highly anticipated, explosive new book, the author of The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation calls for an end to religion's monopoly on morality and human values. In The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values, Sam Harris tears down the wall between scientific facts and human values to dismantle the most common justification for religious faith -- that a moral system cannot be based on science.
The End of Faith ignited a worldwide debate about the validity of religion. In its aftermath, Harris discovered that most people, from secular scientists to religious fundamentalists, agree on one point: Science has nothing to say on the subject of human values. Even among religious fundamentalists, the defense one most often hears for belief in God is not that there is compelling evidence that God exists, but that faith in Him provides the only guidance for living a good life. Controversies about human values are controversies about which science has officially had no opinion. Until now.
Morality, Harris argues, is actually an undeveloped branch of neuroscience, and answers to questions of human value can be visualized on a "moral landscape" -- a space of real and potential outcomes whose peaks and valleys correspond to human states of greater or lesser wellbeing. Different ways of thinking and behaving -- different cultural practices, ethical codes, modes of government, etc. -- translate into movements across this landscape. Such changes can be analyzed objectively on many levels, ranging from biochemistry to economics, but they have their crucial realization as experiences in the human brain.
Bringing a fresh, secular perspective to age-old questions of right and wrong, and good and evil, Harris shows that we know enough about the human brain and its relationship to events in the world to say that there are right and wrong answers to the most pressing questions of human life. Because such answers exist, cultural relativism is simply false -- and comes at increasing cost to humanity. And just as there is no such thing as Christian physics or Muslim algebra, there can be no Christian or Muslim morality. Using his expertise in philosophy and neuroscience, along with his experience on the front lines of our "culture wars," Sam Harris delivers a game-changing argument about the future of science and about the real basis of human cooperation. - Berkeley Arts and Letters
Sam Harris is an American non-fiction author, and CEO of Project Reason. He received a Ph.D. in neuroscience from UCLA, and is a graduate in philosophy from Stanford University. He has studied both Eastern and Western religious traditions, along with a variety of contemplative disciplines, for twenty years. He is a proponent of scientific skepticism and is the author of The End of Faith (2004), which won the 2005 PEN/Martha Albrand Award, Letter to a Christian Nation (2006), a rejoinder to criticism of his first book, and The Moral Landscape (2010).
6 Views
10:55:24 06/02/10
Duties Of Young Muslims
[LESS INFO] 6 VIEWS | ADDED 10:55:24 06/02/10
2. Duties of Young Muslims The first duty of the Muslim youth is to rectify their views and thoughts with a view to knowing their din on the basis of clear evidence and Understanding and according to a proper methodology. The right start is acquiring the proper methodology of comprehending Islam, and of dealing with themselves, people and life. Historically, Muslim scholars have established certain principles and methods which have enhanced the proper comprehension, and deduction of matters and issues whether supported by texts or not. This led to the establishment of the science of usul al fiqh: a discipline which studies the methodology of deriving laws from the sources of Islam and of establishing their juristic or constitutional validity. Thus, they established the principles of the controlling and controlled evidence, the subject and object of controlling aspects of evidence: the main and the subsidiary, the imperative and the negative, the general and the particular, the absolute and the restricted, the pronounced and the comprehend. They also established the total aims of the Shariah, such as safeguarding people's welfare, counteracting evil and harm; they divided needs into: essential, necessary and comforts. This is indeed a unique science of which there is no equal, and of which Muslims have the right to be proud. In addition, there are other principles and rules of fiqh which may not be available in the books of usul but are found in various books on usul al tafsir and Qur'anic sciences, as well as usul al hadith, and Hadith sciences. In addition to these, there are various rules and principles scattered in books of beliefs, hadith interpretation, and jurisprudence which can be observed by those who have acquired an insight into the purpose of Shariah and its innermost recesses. What is required, therefore, is not a shallow understanding of the texts but rather a deep knowledge and a genuine comprehension of the purposes of Qur'anic verses and the ahad'ith. The fiqh, the awareness, and the knowledge required must take the following into consideration First: Knowledge of and insight into Shariah cannot be complete without considering all the particular aspects in relation to the general context of the entire truth of Islam. To issue a judgment a Quranic verse or a hadith must be interpreted in the light of other ahadith, the Sunnah of the Prophet (.SA'AS) as well as the practice of the companions (RA'A), and must be understood in the light of the Qur'an and the general context and purposes of Shariah. Otherwise there will be a defect in this understanding, and a confusion in deduction and derivation which could create contradictions in Shariah and subject it to ridicule and to calumniations. For this reason, Imam al Shatibi set two conditions for ijtihad: (1) understanding the purposes of Shariah in its totality, and (2) the ability to derive and to draw conclusions on the basis of this understanding.' This can only be fulfilled when there is a deep and wide knowledge of the texts, especially the ahaith and the traditions, in addition to an insight into the reasons, the events, the circumstances, and the purposes of each text, as well as an ability to distinguish between the eternal and unalterable and those formulated to meet a temporary need, an existing custom or tradition, or certain transient circumstances which can be changed when the latter change. One day I was lecturing on proper Islamic dress for women, according to the Qur'an and Sunnah, when a person in the audience said that the hijab mentioned in the Qur'an must include an additional outer covering. I replied that the hijab is not an end in itself, but rather a means for decently covering those parts of the body which the Shariah prohibits to be exposed. In this sense, it can differ from one place and time to another. But the man shouted furiously that the garment required is very clearly specified in a Qur'anic text, and we therefore have no right to change it. He cited the following verse: O Prophet! Tell your wives and daughters and the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad). That is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested. I replied that the Qur'an sometimes specifies certain means and methods that were suitable and common at the time of the revelation, but were never meant to become permanently binding if better or similar ones are found. The following example is sufficient enough to demonstrate my point. Allah (SWT) said: Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies of Allah and your enemies. The steed is specifically mentioned above because it was?at the time of revelation-one of the most powerful means known at the time. But there is indeed no reason why Muslims in our times and in earlier days should not use tanks and armored vehicles to achieve the end referred to in the above verse, i.e., to strike fear into the hearts of the enemies of Allah (SWT) and of the enemies of Muslims. Similarly, the woman's outer garment could be any dress which satisfies the objective expressed in verse that Muslim women should be recognized and not molested. If such is the case of the Qurian, which has an eternal and comprehensive nature, it is only logical that the Sunnah is even more open to such an examination. The Sunnah comprise a multitude of teachings, the legislative and the nonlegislative, the general and the specific, the eternal and the changeable: a change necessitated by a change in the reasons and the exigencies. In issues and matterrelated to eating, drinking, and dressing, for example, there are legislative as well as nonlegislative Sunnah. Eating with the fingers rather than with silverware is not compulsory. The former method was more natural and suitable to the simple life and nature of the Arabs at the time of the Prophet (SA'AS). However this does not mean that using a spoon is haram (unlawful) or makruh (condemned or discouraged), since it is now so widely available that it in no way indicates any extravagance or excess. But this does not apply to silver or gold tableware, the use of which has clearly been forbidden. Similarly we have to abide by the injunction to eat with the right hand as the purpose of this teaching is fundamental and unalterable, and because it seeks to establish a uniform custom among Muslims, directing them to follow a right?hand approach in everything. The Prophet (SA'AS) ordered us: "Say bism Allah [before you begin] and eat with your right hand." In another hadith he said: "None of you should eat or drink with his left hand, because Satan eats and drinks with his left hand." Furthermore, during the Prophet's time, Muslims had no idea whatsoever of sieves, which were later known and used to advantage. Could this be regarded as a prohibited innovation or a hateful practice? of course not. Another example is the issue of wearing a short thawb (garment), which pious young Muslims adhere to and insist on wearing despite the problems which it creates for them, as if it was one of the fundamentals of Islam. These young people put forth two arguments: (1) The dress has to be a short thawb because this is the type of dress the Prophet (SA'AS) and his companions (RAA) used. They further believe that other costumes lead us to imitate the kufar, a practice prohibited in Islam; and (2) It has to be short because there are ahadith which prohibit wearing below?the?ankle izar or thawb such as: "The part of an izar which hangs below the ankles is in the Fire. With regard to the first argument, the Prophet's Sunnah knawn to us is that he wore whatever was available to him. For this reason, he wore shirts, robes, and izars. The Prophet (SA'AS) also wore garments and garbs made in the Yemen and Persia, which were embroidered on the sides with silk. He also wore Tmarnah (cap) with or without a turban. Al Imam Ibn al Qayyim says in Al Hady al Nabaw': The best guidance is the Sunnah of the Prophet (SA'AS), the things he regularly practised, ordered, and encouraged people to do. His sunnah in dressing is that he used to wear whatever was available for him whether made of cotton, wool, or linen. He is known to have worn cloaks from the Yemen, green cloaks, jubbah, garments with full?length sleeves, shirts, pants and robes, shoes and slippers. . . He used, sometimes, to grow a plait in the back. The textile industry was unknown then, so people used to wear clothes imported from the Yemen, Egypt, and Syria. In our time, we wear- without any inhibition-underwear, head coverings, shoes, etc., which were unknown during the Prophet's time. Why then this excessive fuss about the thawb in particular? As for the argument of imitating the kuffar, we are actually prohibited from imitating their distinguishing characteristics ? as followers of other religions-such as sporting the cross, wearing ecclesiastical costumes, celebrating non?Muslim festivals, all of which indicate adherence to a different religion. Ibn Taimiyah explained all this in detail in his book: Iqti'al Sirat al Mustaqim fi Mukhalafat Ahl al Jahim. With the exception of such conspicuous matters, judgment is made on the basis of intention and purpose. If a Muslim deliberately imitates the kuffar, he would be held blameworthy on the basis of his intention. But if a person unintentionally does things which the kuffar do, or chooses something which is easier for him, or for his job such as wearing the "overalls" by a factory worker or an engineer, he is not to be held blameworthy. Nonetheless, it is more becoming of a Muslim to distinguish himself from non?Muslims in all material and spiritual matters to the best of his ability. The gist of the matter is that wearing a short thawb is more desirable' but wearing a long one is not prohibited if it is just a habit and is not meant to show arrogance, as has already been pointed out. All the examples given above pertain to purely personal behavior. In that capacity they are less serious than the issues related to the community as a whole, the affairs of the state, and international relations which are more complex and constitute a danger to the community, the state, and humanity at large in the absence of an insightful jurisprudence which takes into consideration the proper dimensions of human needs and social interests. When we ca]l for the resumption of a true Islamic lifestyle and the establishment of a truly Islamic society led by an Islamic state, we must recognize the fact that we live in a world in which human relations are interrelated and complex, ideologies are numerous, distances are shrinking, and barriers are beginning to collapse. It is a world that has become smaller than ever before due to unprecedented technological progress We must also take into consideration the fact that the community includes the powerful and the weak, men and women, adults and children, the righteous and the transgressor. This diversity must be taken into consideration when we seek to guide, legislate, or give fatiawa. A Muslim who seeks Allah's pleasure may choose to place restrictions on himself and stick to the most extreme and cautious opinions in his endeavor. He can deprive himself of all the means of entertainment such as singing, music, photography, television, etc. But can any modern state afford to do without these? Can any effective journalism do without photography? Can any ministry of Interior?or passport office, immigration or traffic department-or an educational institution do without photography which has become the most important means of discovering and preventing crimes and forgery? Can any contemporary state ignore the times it exists in and deprive its subjects of the invaluable services of television and rely only on the radio, on the grounds that television depends upon photography which is haram as some students of "religious education" argue these days? In short, what I wish to emphasize here is that a person's restrictions on himself may be tolerated and accepted, but it would be intolerable and indeed unacceptable to force these restrictions upon the various groups in the community as a whole. The Prophet said: Whoever leads people in salah should shorten it because among them are the weak, the old, and those who have business to attend to. This guidance on leading people in salah is also applicable to leading people in any aspect of life. One of the most serious problems is the failure of some religious people to take account the fact that the ahkam of Shaniah are not equally important or permanent, and therefore different interpretations can be permitted. There are hypothetical judgments which mainly deal with transactions, customs' and manners. These are open to ijtihad. Disagreement-based on authentic ijtihad-on these issues represents no harm or threat. On the contrary, it is a blessing on the Ummah, and demonstrates flexibility in Shariah and a spaciousness in fiqh. There were indeed differences of opinion and disagreement among the Prophet's companions (RA'A)-as well as their successors ? on various issues. But such disagreement never caused or created ill?feelings or disunity among them. On the other hand, there are a.hkam dealing with matters of faith, belief, and 'ibadah which are firmly established in the Qurian and Sunnah and ijma'(consesus), and which have become definitive and categorical. Although they are not requirements of din, they represent the intellectual and behavioral unity of the Ummah. Deviation from these ahkam is a deviation from Sunnah: it is sinfulness, prohibited bida (innovation), and could lead to kufr. In addition, there are those a,hkam which must be necessarily known and obvious toall people, learned or otherwise. Rejection of these ahkam is a clear denial of Allah (SWT) and of His Prophet (.SA'AS). There should be differention between ahkam based on fundamental or subsidiary issues, whether proven textually or by ijtihad; there should also be differentiation between the categorial and the hypothetical ahkam in texts, and between the necessary and the unecessary ahkam in din. Each has its status. Our great fuqaha have differed widely in their interpretation of some issues, and one can indeed ftnd various opinions on a single issue. There is disagreement, for example, on the heinous sin of murdering a Muslim under duress. Should the punishment fall upon the murderer or upon one who compelled him to do it? or should it fall upon both or neither, since the crime was not completely premeditated and committed by a single person? All these possibilities were voiced and supported by some fuqaha' Even within each madhhab we find different opinions, narrations, ways, and approaches among the 'ulama' Suffice it to say that the subject of that disagreement within Imam Ahmad's madhhab-which is established on and follows tradition-has included enough opinions and narration to fill a twelve?volume book, al In.saf fi al Rajih min al Khilaf. In view of this, young Muslims should be fully aware of the issues which are open to disagreement and those which are not. But more importantly' they should know the standard norms of behavior practised in settling differences and disagreements. They must learn adab al khilaf (ethics of disagreement),'! which we have inherited from our a'immah and 'ulama' We must learn from them how to be open?minded and tolerant toward those with whom we disagree about subsidiary religious matters. How can we differ and disagree yet remain united brothers who love and respect each other and who refrain from exchanging accusations? First of all, we must realize that disagreements on marginal and subsidiary matters and issues are natural. There is indeed a Divine wisdom in making a few a,hkam in Shari'ah categorical in both their definitiveness and meaning, and in making hypothetical ones which constitute the bulk of a,hkam and on which there is broad scope for fruitful disagreement. It is a blessing that Allah (SWT) has bestowed on some Muslim ulama' the ability to ascertain, to examine closely, and to decide on matters of disagreement without prejudice against any madhhab or opinion. These include the following a'immah: Ibn Daqiq al 'Id, Ibn Taymiyah, Ibn Qayyim, Ibn Kathir, Ibn Hajar al 'Asqalai, al Dahlawi, al Shawkani, al San'ani, and others. But differences are bound to arise and continue because they are deeply rooted in the nature of man, life, language and -Divine commandment. Attempts to eradicate these differences will fail, because they will actually be battling against human nature, against life, against all sunan. As we have already mentioned, disagreement based on authentic ijtihad which does not create discord or disunity is a blessing for the Ummah and an enrichment of fiqh. Objective disagreement in itself poses no threat if it is coupled with tolerance and openmindedness, and if it is free from fanaticism, accusations, and narrowmindedness. The Prophet's Companions differed among themselves on many issues and practical a,hkam, but they still never condemned one another and had very cordial and strong relations. 'Umar ibn 'Abd al 'Aziz said: "I never wished that the Prophet's companions had rot had disagreements. Their disagreement was a mercy." Different interpretations even emerged during the life of the Prophet (SA'AS). These were sanctioned by him, and he did not single out one party or group for blame. Immediately after the battle of the Akzab, the Prophet (.SAAS) said to his Companions: 'whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day must not perform ,salat al asr until he has reached [the dwellings of] Banu Qurayzah. Some of the Companions found. This practically impossible, and therefore performed salat al Asr before reaching their destination. Others?who were literalists-only performed salah when they reached the dwellings of Banu Qurayzah as the Prophet (SA'AS) had asked them. When the Prophet (SA'AS) was told, he approved of the action of both parties although one of them must have been wrong. This clearly indicates that there is no sin in acting upon an interpretation which is based on solid evidence, sincere genuine intention and ijtihad. Ibn al Qayyim described those who applied the essence of ahadith as Ahl al Qiyas (analogy applicants) and those who applied the letter of a,hadith as Zahiriyah (literalists). Unfortunately, there are people these days who not only assume that they know the whole truth and all the answers, but who also try to coerce other people to follow them, believing that they can eradicate all madhahib and disagreements and unite all people in one single stroke. They tend to forget that their own understanding and interpretation of the texts are no more than hypotheses which may be right or wrong. Moreover, no human (i.e., no 'alim) is infallible, even though he may satisfy all the conditions and requisities of ijtihad. All that is certain is the reward he will obtain for his ijtihad, whether it was right or wrong, should the intention be sincere. Therefore, such people would achieve nothing except the creation of an additional madhhab! It is strange and absurd that while they disapprove of people's adherence to different madhahib, they themselves try to persuade people to imitate them and follow their new madhhab. No one should jump to the conclusion that I reject their call for adherence to the texts or their own interpretations and understanding. This is absolutely the right granted to everyone who can fulfill the conditions of ijtihad and its means. No one has the right to close the gates of ijtihad which were opened by the Prophet (SA'AS) for the whole Ummah What I do reject is their self?presumption, arrogance, vanity, and disregard for the findings of their learned predecessors, their disrespect for the fifh we have inherited from our great forebears. I reject their false claim that they alone are right, as well as their erroneous impression that they can eliminate disparity and disagreement and unite people on one opinion-their own. One of the followers of this "one?opinion" school asked me once why all Muslims should not agree on the juristic opinion supported by the text I replied that the text first has to be authentic and accepted by all, its meaning has to be plain, and it should not be contradicted by another text, whether stonger or similar in evidence. There should be full agreement as regards the three preceding points. A text may be regarded as authentic by an imam, but another imam may see it as weak or as authentic but without proven evidence justifying its given meaning; a text may be regarded as general by an imam but as particular by another, or it may be seen as absolute or restricted; it may also be regarded as categorrical or abrogated. Such variance leads to producing different ahkam i.e. something may be wajib or haram, mustahabb or makruh. In short all these difference fall within the considerations pointed out by Ibn Taymiyah in his book, Raf al Malam an al A'immat al A'lam, and mentioned by Waliy Allah al Dahlaw' in his book, .Hujjat Allah al Balighah, and in his, al Insaf fi Asbab al Ikhtilaf, and detailed by al Shaykn 'Al. al Khafif in his book, Asbab Ikhtilaf al Fuqaha' Let us consider the following ahadah: 1. "Any woman who wears a gold necklace will be made to wear a similar one [made] of fire on the Day of Judgment. And any woman who wears gold earrings will have a similar one [made of fire] on the Day of Judgment. 2. "Whoever desires his beloved to wear a ring [made] of fire [on the Day of Judgment], let him give him [her] [to wear] a gold ring. And whoever desires his beloved to wear a necklace [made] of fire [on the Day of Judgment], let him give him [her] [to wear] a gold necklace. And whoever desires his beloved to wear a bracelet [made] of fire [on the Day of Judgment], let him give him [her][to wear] a gold bracelet. But you can do whatever you please with silver. 3. It is also related by Thawban (RA'A) that the Prophet (SA'AS) warned his daughter Fatimah (RA'A) against wearing a gold chain. In response, she sold it, bought a slave with the money, and set him free. When the Prophet (SA'AS) was told of this, he said: "Thanks to Allah (SWT) who rescued Fatimah from the Fire. Justists have different attitudes toward these ahadith: 1. Some have examined their isnad and, finding them weak, rejected them and considered them insufficiant for prohibition, which requires clear cut evidence and careful investigation, especially with respect to matters of general concern and which Muslims have generally accepted. 2. Others have agreed that the isnad is correct but that the ahadith have been revoked because other evidence in other sources have permitted women to adorn themselves with gold. Al Bayhaqi and others have reported the consensus on this matter which has been accepted in fiqh and become a standard practice. 3. Some considered the ahadith applicable to those who have not given zakah on the gold they have, basing their opinion on other ahadith which have not, themselves, escaped criticism. Furthermore. zakah on women's jewellery is a subject of disagreement among the different madhahib. 4. Some jusrists argue that these ahaith seek to warn women who vainly adorn themselves with gold, deliberately intending to draw attention to their wealth. Al Nasal also reported some ahadith which are relevant to this issue under the title: Bab al Karahiyah li al Nisa'.fi Ihar Hilal Dhahab (Disapproval of Women's Display of Golden Jewelry). Other jurists say that they are related only to excessive adornment out of vanity or pride. 5. In our own times, Shaykh Nasir al Din al Albani has come out with an opinion different from the consensus on permitting women to adorn themselves with gold, which has been accepted by all madhahib for the last fourteen centuries. He not only believes that the isnad of these ahadith is authentic, but that these texts are categorical in this matter; i.e. prohibiting gold rings and earrings. In this he disagreed with the consensus of the fiqh of all madhahib and the practice of the Ummah throughout the past fourteen hundred years. Has the existence of these ahadith prevented disagreement on their authenticity or guidance? Can the modern "traditionalist school" eradicate disagreement and unite all people on one opinion on the basis of ahadith or a tradition which they use as evidence? The answer is clear enough: people will continue to disagree and differ amongst themselves, and this will, in shaa Allah, pose no danger or problem. Allah ta 'ala says: "To each is a goal to which Allah turns him". In this respect, I feel inclined to admit that the religious leader who, in this age, has understood the essence and ethics of disagreements was hasan al Banna (d. 1949). He brought up his followers to believe in and adhere to these ethics. Despite his unflinching commitment to the cause of Muslim solidarity and his sincere efforts to unite the various Muslim groups and make them agree at least on minimum Islamic concepts and principals, as is clear from his own known work al Usul al 'Ishrun, he was convinced of the inevitability of disagreement on the subsidiary issues and the practical ahkam of Islam. This he has eloquently discussed in many of his messages which have proved to be useful In Dawatuna (Our Da'wah), al Banna spoke of the characteristics of his da'wah as being general ones which neither patronize a particular sect nor advocate a particular line of thought. Interest is in the core of din and its essence; it hopes that all endeavors are united so that a more fruitful work can be done to produce greater results; it supports truth everywhere; it likes consensus and dislikes eccentricity; it attributes a great deal of the mishaps which have befallen Muslims to misguided disagreement and to disunity; it believes that love and unity are the major factor of their victories, and that the only hope for invigorating and revitalizing the present?day Ummah lies in reviving and adopting the practice of the early generations of Muslims. But, in spite of his strong belief in the necessity of unity and dislike of disunity, al Banna wrote: We believe that disagreements on subsidiary religious issues are inevitable for various reasons, the most important of which are: Intellectual differences resulting from the level of intelligence and depth of knowledge, the multiplicity and interrelatedness of the facts, and the inherent ambiguities of the Arabic language which are bound to affect the interpretation of the texts. In all these people are different, and therefore disagreement is inevitable. The abundance of the sources of knowledge in some parts of the Islamic world and their scarcity in other places is also an important factor. Malik said to Abu Ja'far: "The Prophet's companions scattered into remote regions, each group possessing specific knowledge. If you were to force them to follow one opinion you would create fitnah. There are also cultural differences. Al Shafi'i (RA'A) used to give different fatawa in accordance with the different conditions prevailing in Iraq and in Egypt. In both cases he used to base his verdict upon what he believed to be truth. The opinion of the imam toward the narrator is another factor. One imam may consider a narrator fully reliable, but another may have doubts about the same narrator and consequently refrain from taking what he has transmitted in full confidence. Also, a cause of difference lies in assessing the evidence of ahkam; some give precedence to people's practices over ahadith narrated through by one single narrator, etc. For these reasons we believe that a consensus on subsidiary religious matters is not only impossible but incompatible with the nature of din, because such a demand is bound to generate rigidity and excessiveness, which are contrary to the Islamic imperatives of flexibility, facilitation, and simplicity. Doubtless, these virtues will enable Islam to meet the requirements of all times. Furthermore, we understand the reasons of those who disagree with us on subsidiary and marginal issues. Such disagreement does not affect our mutual love or cooperation, as we are all contained within the comprehensiveness of Islam. Aren't we all Muslim, required to like for our Muslim brothers what we like for ourselves? Why disagreement then, and why cannot each of us have our different opinions, and also try to reach an agreement, if possible, in an atmosphere of candor and love? The companions of the Prophet (SA'AS) had disagreed in fatwa, but that did not create any disunity or rupture. The incident of the salah and Banu Qurayzah is a case in point. If these who have known the ahkam better than us have had their disagreements, isn't it absurd that we maliciously disagree with each other on frivolous matters? If our a'immah, who more than any one else know the Qur'an and Sunnah, have had their disagreements and their debates, why cannot we do the same? If there was disagreement on even clear and well?known subsidiary issues, such as the five?times?a?day adhan, which were supported by texts and by tradition, what about the more delicate issues which are subject to opinion and deduction? We also need to remember that during the time of the Caliphate, disagreements were referred to, and settled by, the Caliph. Since there are no caliphs these days, Muslims must find a judge to which they can refer their case. Otherwise, their disagreement will lead to another disagreement. Finally, our brothers are fully aware of all this and have consequently more patience and open?mindedness. They believe that each group of people has specific knowledge and that in each da'wah there are elements of truth as well as falsity. They carefully investigate the truth and accept it, and they try with amicability to convince those who are wrong. If the latter are convinced it is indeed very good, but if they are not they remain our Muslim brothers. We ask Allah to guide us and to guide them. The above is a brief summary of Imam al Bannas views on juristic disagreements and his attitude toward them. It clearly shows his deep knowledge of Islam, of history, and of reality. I would also like to relate an ancident in al Bannas life-which could have been the experience of other 'ulama'as well-to illustrate these concepts and views. One day during Ramadan, al Banna was invited to deliver a lecture in a small village in Egypt. The people in that village were divided into two groups which held different opinions regarding the number of raka 'at in salat al tarawih. One group argued that according to the tradition of' Umar ibn al Khattab (RA'A), they should be twenty. The other group insisted that they must be eight, maintaining that it was known that the Prophet (SA'AS) never exceeded this number at any time. Accordingly, each group accused the other of bidah, and their disagreement reached a dangerous level, almost leading to open physical conflict. When al Banna arrived they agreed to refer the matter to him. The way he handled this event is instructive to all of us. He first asked: "What is the juristic status of salat al tarawih?" The answer was: "A sunnah, and those who perform it are rewarded, those who do not are not punished." He then asked: "And what is the juristic status of brotherhood among Muslims?" The people replied: "fard [Obligatory], and it is one of the fundamentals of Iman." He then concluded: "Is it therefore logical or permissible according to Shariah to abandon afard for a sunnah?. He then told them that if they preserved their brotherhood and unity and each went home and performed salat al tarawIh according to his own genuine conviction, it would indeed be far better then arguing and quarreling. When I mentioned this to some people, they said that al Bannas action was evasive?an escape from the truth, i.e., from pointing out the difference between a sunnah and a bidah. This, they insisted, is the duty of a Muslim. I replied that this is a matter where there is room for different opinions, and that although I perform eight raka 'at, I do not accuse those performing twenty of bidah. They persisted that making a decision on such matters is a duty which a Muslim must not evade. I insisted that this is true when the choice is between halal and haram, but in matters on which the juristic schools of thought have had their disagreements and, consequently, each one of us his own view, there is no need for bigotry or zealotry. Many fair Muslim ulama have clearly sanctioned this. The following quotation is from one of the .Hanabilah books entitled Sharh Ghayat al Muntaha: Whoever rejects an opinion reached by ijtihad does so because of his ignorance of the status of the mujtahidun who will be rewarded, be they right or wrong, for their laborious, timeconsuming findings in this respect. Those who follow them commit no sin, because Allah has ordained for each of them that to which his ijtihad had led him, and which becomes part of the Shariiah in that respect. There is an example in the permission to eat, out of dire necessity only, the meat of a dead animal. However, this is prohibited for a person who deliberately chooses to do so. Both of these are wellestablished juristic verdicts. Ibn Taymiyah says in al Fatawa al Misriyah: Consideration of unity [among Muslims] is the right course. The basmalah can be uttered loudly to fulfill a commendable interest. It is also advisable to abandon the preferable in order to create harmony and intimacy, just as the Prophet (SA'AS) gave up the re?building of the Ka'bah [on the foundations laid down by Ibrahim] so as not to alienate 1the people of Makkah]. The a immah, like Imam Ahmad, are of this opinion with regard to the basmalah, to replace the preferable with the acceptable in order to preserve unity. Ibn Taymiyah referred to the following hadith with regard to the building of the Ka'bah. The Prophet (SA'AS) said to 'Aishah (RA'A): "Had your ople not been in jahilyah (the attitudes and mentality of pre?Islamic time) until recently, I would have rebuilt the Ka'bah on the foundations [laid] by Ibrahim." Ibn al Qayyim also discussed the issue of qunut in Salat alfujr. Some people have considered qunut as bidah, others as supererogatory to be practised in times of hardships as well as other times. In his book Zad a1 Ma'ad, he argues that the Prophet's Sunnah sanctions qunut during the times of hardship, and that this has been accepted by hadith scholars who follow what the Prophet (SA'AS) did. They therefore did qanut at the times the Prophet (SA'AS) is known to have done qunut and abstained from it at the times he is known to have abstained from qunut They see qunut as a sunnah and abstaining from it as also a sunnah Therefore they neither object to those who continually do qanut or to those who abstain from it, and they do not consider it bidah. Ibn al Qayyim writes: A proper posture to ask Allah's blessings and to offer thanks to Him is when a person stands up after kneeling in Salah. The Prophet (SA'AS) did both in this posture. It is acceptable for the imam to utter qunut prayers these loudly so that the people behind him can hear. 'Umar ibn al Khatt.ab raised his voice when reciting the Fatihah, and so did Ibn 'Abbas during the salah for the dead in order to let people know that it is sunnah to do so. Such practices are subject to acceptable disagreement; neither those who do them nor those who refrain are blameworthy: the same applies to raising the hands during Salah, the various ways of tashahhud, adhan, iqamah, as well as the types of hajj as ifrad, qiran and tamattu' Our purpose is only to mention the Prophet's Sunnah, which is our guiding principle in this book and which we seek to investigate. Having said that, I wish to point out that I have not tried to deal with what is permissible and what is not. Our concern is with the permissible practice which the Prophet (SA'AS) used to choose for himself, and which is the best and most perfect. If we say that there is no indication in his Sunnah that he consistently performed qunut during Salat ul Fajr or uttered the basmalah loudly, this does not mean or indicate that we should consider consistency in performing them as makruh? or bidah. It only means that his guidance is the best and most perfect. Moreover, an individual is permitted to continue his salah behind an imam of a different madhhab even if he believes that the latter has done something which nullifies his ablution, or makes his salah nugatory, if the imam's madhhab permits that. Ibn Taymiyah says in al Fawakih al Adidah: Muslims are unanimous on the admissibility of performing Salah behind each other as was the practice of the Companions and the Tabi'un, as well as that of the four great jurists of Islam. Whoever rejects this practice is a straying mabtadi' who deviates from the teaching of the Quran, Sunnah, and the consensus of the Muslims. Although some of the companions and the Tabiun uttered the basmalah loudly and other did not, they nevertheless continued to perform Salah behind each other. So did Abu Hanifah and his followers, as well as al Shafi'i and others who used to perform salah behind the Malikiyah in Madinah, although the latter did not utter the basmalah, neither loudly nor in their hearts. It is said that Abu Yusuf performed Salah behind al Rashid who had been cupped.'9 Because al Imam Malik has given afatwa that there is no need to renew ablutions in thicase, Abu Yusuf continued his salah behind al Rashid. However, Ahmad ibn Hanbal was of the opinion that ablution must be done after cupping and nosebleeding. Confronted with a hypothetical situation whether a member of the congregation who notices a discharge of blood from the imam, who does not renew his ablution, should continue his Salah behind him, Ibn Hanbal said: "It is inconceivable not to perform Salah behind Said ibn al Musayyab and Malik." He then added that there are two considerations in this issue: (1) If the man is not aware of anything that invalidates the imam's Salah he should continue behind him. This is agreed upon by the forebears and the four great jurists; and (2) If he was sure that the imam has done something which renders him impure, such as touching his genitals or women out of sexual desire, cupping or vomiting, and did not renew his ablution, he then must act according to his best judgment, because this is an issue about which there is a great deal of disagreement. The majority of our forebears are of the opinion that the salah of those behind such an imam is valid. This is the opinion of Malik's madhhab, but a second opinion in al Shafi is and Abu Hanifah's. Most of Ahmad's texts support this opinion, which is the correct one.
2 Views
00:05:31 11/23/09
9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey Finally Confesses "9 11 Commission Could Not Do It's Job" Part 3 Of 3
[LESS INFO] 2 VIEWS | ADDED 00:05:31 11/23/09
9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey finally confesses "9-11 Commission could not do it's job" Part 3 of 3www.framingtheworld.comCREDITS:Staring: Robert Kerrey, Jeremy Rothe-Kushel, Bruno Bruhwiler, Katy Krutzman, Dan Noel and Paul WittenbergerCamera: Paul WittenbergerEdited: Paul WittenbergerDate: October 30, 2009ABOUT VIDEO:9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey finally confesses "9-11 Commission could not do it's job"ARTICLES ABOUT VIDEO:Coming Soon.ARTICLES ABOUT EVENT:REDLANDSDAILYFACTS.COMEXAMINOR.COM9/11 Commission member Bob Kerrey to speak in Redlands October 29, 2009 - LA County Libertarian Examiner Martin Hill Former U.S. Senator Bob Kerrey, member of the "911 Commission" will speak at the University of Redlands Town & Gown Cultural Series on Friday, October 30, at 5:00 p.m. The website requests that attendees register in advance, and links interested parties to a form which requests personal information.The venue touts Kerrey's appearance as one where he "will voice his thoughts on current economic events and changing public policy as well as environmental global warming issues" and "present his views on the future of education and on using technology and design to help solve urban issues such as those encountered in New York City". Kerrey is known for having taken part in the Thanh Phong Massacre in Vietnam, outlined by Wikipedia to be a gruesome bloodbath: "On February 25, 1969, he led a Swift Boat raid on the isolated peasant village of Thanh Phong, Vietnam, targeting a Viet Cong leader that intelligence suggested would be present. The village was considered part of a free-fire zone by the U.S. military. Kerrey's SEAL team first encountered a peasant house, or hooch, and killed the people inside with knives. While Kerrey says he did not go inside the hooch and did not participate in the killings, another member of the team, Gerhard Klann, said that the people killed there were an elderly man and woman and three children under 12, and that Kerrey helped kill the man." A scathing Counterpunch article from May 2001 outlined how Kerrey is wanted as a war criminal for doing the CIA's dirty work and killing innocent civilians, as well as the fact that Kerrey is referred to by former Nebraska Senator John DeCamp as "emotionally disturbed" as a result of his Vietnam experience. Regarding the investigation into the 9/11 attacks, Kerrey wrote in a March 2009 book review that "It was simply too time-consuming for part-time service" and that the "examination of this conspiracy should go on, though not by the 9/11 Commission". Kerrey went on to address the public's pervasive doubts of the official government story, and as he puts it, "why so many people have come to believe alternative conspiracy theories". A Newsweek columnist from March 2009 explains that Kerrey had feared that the 9/11 investigation "depended too heavily on the accounts of Al Qaeda detainees who were physically coerced into talking" and that "Kerrey said it might take "a permanent 9/11 commission" to end the remaining mysteries of September 11" The 9/11 Commission Report, considered by many to be a coverup , and sham , is often dissected by the alternative media and best-selling author Theologan David Ray Griffin. OPEDNEWS.COMCommissioner Bob Kerrey confronted with questions regarding 9/11/01 November 2, 2009 - LA County Libertarian Examiner Martin HillBob Kerrey, former U.S. Senator and member of the 9/11 Commission, spoke Friday at the the University of Redlands Town & Gown Cultural Series.Kerry was questioned by several audience members regarding the 9/11 commission report, which is the government's official version of events regarding the attacks on September 11th 2001. John Shanahan P.E., licensed member of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, attended the event. "I had no idea what the subject of his discussion would be", Shanahan explained, "but I went there with some preparation for asking a hostile question about his involvement on the 9-11 commission and why did he NOT resign instead of going along with the program. I was not selected to ask a question." Shanahan, in addition to owning an engineering firm, is a Constitutionalist who has successfuly beaten seat belt tickets and stop sign tickets in court. "The auditorium was fairly large", Shanahan continued, "with graduated level floor seating and balcony seating--capacity of possiblly 350, and was at least 80% full. Kerrey started at about 5p.m. and could not have been speaking for more than about a half hour. I thought that we would have the balance of the time for questions. Even though they cut the questioning off at slightly before 6PM, every time there was an opportunity, at least 6-8 people raised their hands". "Pretty much Kerrey revealed how he supports big government and its involvement in health care. He's grateful to big health care for the prosthetic that he received after his wound in Vietnam--he said nothing about the lies told by big government to get our military involvement in the first place). He says that we must address climate change or it will be our undoing, and advocated much more money to be spent on education and affirmative action." Shanahan, who regularly wears a lapel pin debunking the government version of events, got a chance to meet Kerrey afterwards. "My head was reeling with all of the hostile questions that I was developing even though I never got a chance to pose a public query. When I met him for the cookies and coffee outside the auditorium, he started reading word by word the pin that I had on my shirt 'The--official--911--story--is--a--big--lie'. You should have seen the sour expression that came over his face. He did not appear to appreciate my questions and statements on global warming, either." "I shook hands with him after the meeting, introduced myself to him and challenged him on his views on global warming. He knew nothing about www.oism.org and Dr. Art Robinson's 1998 petition against the Kyoto Protocol; he changed the subject and one of his handlers rescued him from me." Bruno Bruhwiler, founding member of We Are Change L.A., took the opportunity to confront Kerrey, asking him how he sleeps at night, to which Kerrey responded with bathroom humor, joking "I don't think I do sleep well at night, I get up to take leaks." Bruno said he intended to admonish Kerrey that now is not the time for levity, but Kerrey went on to admit that the commission did not answer all the relevant questions, that he came onto the commission late, and lacked both the proper time and funding. We Are Change has confronted many politicians and insiders regarding the events of 9/11. "You try to get in touch with their humanness", Bruhwiler explained. Kerrey's son was born on 9/10/01, and during their exchange, Bruhwiler addressed how the world has changed a lot since that time, with torture and tyranny occuring as a result of 9/11. "You pull the audience in", he explained. "Whoever's listening, they get educated and snap out of whatever false reality they're in." In the hopes that the general public will learn about the issues surrounding 9/11 and government corruption, Bruhwiler suggested that the audience look up world trade center building seven. We Are Change LA took several videos of their exchanges with Kerry, and will release them in the coming weeks. Shanahan remarked on Kerrey's bathroom humor as well. "He's obviously a complelety soulless individual. But when all is said and done, he's a CFR member. What else needs to be said?"
8 Views
17:35:29 11/20/09
9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey Finally Confesses "9 11 Commission Could Not Do It's Job" Part 2 Of 3
[LESS INFO] 8 VIEWS | ADDED 17:35:29 11/20/09
9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey finally confesses "9-11 Commission could not do it's job" Part 2 of 3 www.framingtheworld.com CREDITS:Staring: Robert Kerrey, Jeremy Rothe-Kushel, Bruno Bruhwiler, Katy Krutzman, Dan Noel and Paul WittenbergerCamera: Paul WittenbergerEdited: Paul WittenbergerDate: October 30, 2009ABOUT VIDEO:9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey finally confesses "9-11 Commission could not do it's job"ARTICLES ABOUT VIDEO:Coming Soon.ARTICLES ABOUT EVENT:REDLANDSDAILYFACTS.COMEXAMINOR.COM9/11 Commission member Bob Kerrey to speak in Redlands October 29, 2009 - LA County Libertarian Examiner Martin Hill Former U.S. Senator Bob Kerrey, member of the "911 Commission" will speak at the University of Redlands Town & Gown Cultural Series on Friday, October 30, at 5:00 p.m. The website requests that attendees register in advance, and links interested parties to a form which requests personal information.The venue touts Kerrey's appearance as one where he "will voice his thoughts on current economic events and changing public policy as well as environmental global warming issues" and "present his views on the future of education and on using technology and design to help solve urban issues such as those encountered in New York City". Kerrey is known for having taken part in the Thanh Phong Massacre in Vietnam, outlined by Wikipedia to be a gruesome bloodbath: "On February 25, 1969, he led a Swift Boat raid on the isolated peasant village of Thanh Phong, Vietnam, targeting a Viet Cong leader that intelligence suggested would be present. The village was considered part of a free-fire zone by the U.S. military. Kerrey's SEAL team first encountered a peasant house, or hooch, and killed the people inside with knives. While Kerrey says he did not go inside the hooch and did not participate in the killings, another member of the team, Gerhard Klann, said that the people killed there were an elderly man and woman and three children under 12, and that Kerrey helped kill the man." A scathing Counterpunch article from May 2001 outlined how Kerrey is wanted as a war criminal for doing the CIA's dirty work and killing innocent civilians, as well as the fact that Kerrey is referred to by former Nebraska Senator John DeCamp as "emotionally disturbed" as a result of his Vietnam experience. Regarding the investigation into the 9/11 attacks, Kerrey wrote in a March 2009 book review that "It was simply too time-consuming for part-time service" and that the "examination of this conspiracy should go on, though not by the 9/11 Commission". Kerrey went on to address the public's pervasive doubts of the official government story, and as he puts it, "why so many people have come to believe alternative conspiracy theories". A Newsweek columnist from March 2009 explains that Kerrey had feared that the 9/11 investigation "depended too heavily on the accounts of Al Qaeda detainees who were physically coerced into talking" and that "Kerrey said it might take "a permanent 9/11 commission" to end the remaining mysteries of September 11" The 9/11 Commission Report, considered by many to be a coverup , and sham , is often dissected by the alternative media and best-selling author Theologan David Ray Griffin. OPEDNEWS.COMCommissioner Bob Kerrey confronted with questions regarding 9/11/01 November 2, 2009 - LA County Libertarian Examiner Martin HillBob Kerrey, former U.S. Senator and member of the 9/11 Commission, spoke Friday at the the University of Redlands Town & Gown Cultural Series.Kerry was questioned by several audience members regarding the 9/11 commission report, which is the government's official version of events regarding the attacks on September 11th 2001. John Shanahan P.E., licensed member of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, attended the event. "I had no idea what the subject of his discussion would be", Shanahan explained, "but I went there with some preparation for asking a hostile question about his involvement on the 9-11 commission and why did he NOT resign instead of going along with the program. I was not selected to ask a question." Shanahan, in addition to owning an engineering firm, is a Constitutionalist who has successfuly beaten seat belt tickets and stop sign tickets in court. "The auditorium was fairly large", Shanahan continued, "with graduated level floor seating and balcony seating--capacity of possiblly 350, and was at least 80% full. Kerrey started at about 5p.m. and could not have been speaking for more than about a half hour. I thought that we would have the balance of the time for questions. Even though they cut the questioning off at slightly before 6PM, every time there was an opportunity, at least 6-8 people raised their hands". "Pretty much Kerrey revealed how he supports big government and its involvement in health care. He's grateful to big health care for the prosthetic that he received after his wound in Vietnam--he said nothing about the lies told by big government to get our military involvement in the first place). He says that we must address climate change or it will be our undoing, and advocated much more money to be spent on education and affirmative action." Shanahan, who regularly wears a lapel pin debunking the government version of events, got a chance to meet Kerrey afterwards. "My head was reeling with all of the hostile questions that I was developing even though I never got a chance to pose a public query. When I met him for the cookies and coffee outside the auditorium, he started reading word by word the pin that I had on my shirt 'The--official--911--story--is--a--big--lie'. You should have seen the sour expression that came over his face. He did not appear to appreciate my questions and statements on global warming, either." "I shook hands with him after the meeting, introduced myself to him and challenged him on his views on global warming. He knew nothing about www.oism.org and Dr. Art Robinson's 1998 petition against the Kyoto Protocol; he changed the subject and one of his handlers rescued him from me." Bruno Bruhwiler, founding member of We Are Change L.A., took the opportunity to confront Kerrey, asking him how he sleeps at night, to which Kerrey responded with bathroom humor, joking "I don't think I do sleep well at night, I get up to take leaks." Bruno said he intended to admonish Kerrey that now is not the time for levity, but Kerrey went on to admit that the commission did not answer all the relevant questions, that he came onto the commission late, and lacked both the proper time and funding. We Are Change has confronted many politicians and insiders regarding the events of 9/11. "You try to get in touch with their humanness", Bruhwiler explained. Kerrey's son was born on 9/10/01, and during their exchange, Bruhwiler addressed how the world has changed a lot since that time, with torture and tyranny occuring as a result of 9/11. "You pull the audience in", he explained. "Whoever's listening, they get educated and snap out of whatever false reality they're in." In the hopes that the general public will learn about the issues surrounding 9/11 and government corruption, Bruhwiler suggested that the audience look up world trade center building seven. We Are Change LA took several videos of their exchanges with Kerry, and will release them in the coming weeks. Shanahan remarked on Kerrey's bathroom humor as well. "He's obviously a complelety soulless individual. But when all is said and done, he's a CFR member. What else needs to be said?"
5 Views
06:39:26 11/07/09
9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey Finally Confesses "9 11 Commission Could Not Do It's Job" Part 1 Of 3
[LESS INFO] 5 VIEWS | ADDED 06:39:26 11/07/09
9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey finally confesses "9-11 Commission could not do it's job" Part 1 of 3www.framingtheworld.comCREDITS:Staring: Robert Kerrey, Jeremy Rothe-Kushel, Bruno Bruhwiler, Katy Krutzman, Dan Noel and Paul WittenbergerCamera: Paul WittenbergerEdited: Paul WittenbergerDate: October 30, 2009ABOUT VIDEO:9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey finally confesses "9-11 Commission could not do it's job"ARTICLES ABOUT VIDEO:Coming Soon.ARTICLES ABOUT EVENT:REDLANDSDAILYFACTS.COMEXAMINOR.COM9/11 Commission member Bob Kerrey to speak in Redlands October 29, 2009 - LA County Libertarian Examiner Martin Hill Former U.S. Senator Bob Kerrey, member of the "911 Commission" will speak at the University of Redlands Town & Gown Cultural Series on Friday, October 30, at 5:00 p.m. The website requests that attendees register in advance, and links interested parties to a form which requests personal information.The venue touts Kerrey's appearance as one where he "will voice his thoughts on current economic events and changing public policy as well as environmental global warming issues" and "present his views on the future of education and on using technology and design to help solve urban issues such as those encountered in New York City". Kerrey is known for having taken part in the Thanh Phong Massacre in Vietnam, outlined by Wikipedia to be a gruesome bloodbath: "On February 25, 1969, he led a Swift Boat raid on the isolated peasant village of Thanh Phong, Vietnam, targeting a Viet Cong leader that intelligence suggested would be present. The village was considered part of a free-fire zone by the U.S. military. Kerrey's SEAL team first encountered a peasant house, or hooch, and killed the people inside with knives. While Kerrey says he did not go inside the hooch and did not participate in the killings, another member of the team, Gerhard Klann, said that the people killed there were an elderly man and woman and three children under 12, and that Kerrey helped kill the man." A scathing Counterpunch article from May 2001 outlined how Kerrey is wanted as a war criminal for doing the CIA's dirty work and killing innocent civilians, as well as the fact that Kerrey is referred to by former Nebraska Senator John DeCamp as "emotionally disturbed" as a result of his Vietnam experience. Regarding the investigation into the 9/11 attacks, Kerrey wrote in a March 2009 book review that "It was simply too time-consuming for part-time service" and that the "examination of this conspiracy should go on, though not by the 9/11 Commission". Kerrey went on to address the public's pervasive doubts of the official government story, and as he puts it, "why so many people have come to believe alternative conspiracy theories". A Newsweek columnist from March 2009 explains that Kerrey had feared that the 9/11 investigation "depended too heavily on the accounts of Al Qaeda detainees who were physically coerced into talking" and that "Kerrey said it might take "a permanent 9/11 commission" to end the remaining mysteries of September 11" The 9/11 Commission Report, considered by many to be a coverup , and sham , is often dissected by the alternative media and best-selling author Theologan David Ray Griffin. OPEDNEWS.COMCommissioner Bob Kerrey confronted with questions regarding 9/11/01 November 2, 2009 - LA County Libertarian Examiner Martin HillBob Kerrey, former U.S. Senator and member of the 9/11 Commission, spoke Friday at the the University of Redlands Town & Gown Cultural Series.Kerry was questioned by several audience members regarding the 9/11 commission report, which is the government's official version of events regarding the attacks on September 11th 2001. John Shanahan P.E., licensed member of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, attended the event. "I had no idea what the subject of his discussion would be", Shanahan explained, "but I went there with some preparation for asking a hostile question about his involvement on the 9-11 commission and why did he NOT resign instead of going along with the program. I was not selected to ask a question." Shanahan, in addition to owning an engineering firm, is a Constitutionalist who has successfuly beaten seat belt tickets and stop sign tickets in court. "The auditorium was fairly large", Shanahan continued, "with graduated level floor seating and balcony seating--capacity of possiblly 350, and was at least 80% full. Kerrey started at about 5p.m. and could not have been speaking for more than about a half hour. I thought that we would have the balance of the time for questions. Even though they cut the questioning off at slightly before 6PM, every time there was an opportunity, at least 6-8 people raised their hands". "Pretty much Kerrey revealed how he supports big government and its involvement in health care. He's grateful to big health care for the prosthetic that he received after his wound in Vietnam--he said nothing about the lies told by big government to get our military involvement in the first place). He says that we must address climate change or it will be our undoing, and advocated much more money to be spent on education and affirmative action." Shanahan, who regularly wears a lapel pin debunking the government version of events, got a chance to meet Kerrey afterwards. "My head was reeling with all of the hostile questions that I was developing even though I never got a chance to pose a public query. When I met him for the cookies and coffee outside the auditorium, he started reading word by word the pin that I had on my shirt 'The--official--911--story--is--a--big--lie'. You should have seen the sour expression that came over his face. He did not appear to appreciate my questions and statements on global warming, either." "I shook hands with him after the meeting, introduced myself to him and challenged him on his views on global warming. He knew nothing about www.oism.org and Dr. Art Robinson's 1998 petition against the Kyoto Protocol; he changed the subject and one of his handlers rescued him from me." Bruno Bruhwiler, founding member of We Are Change L.A., took the opportunity to confront Kerrey, asking him how he sleeps at night, to which Kerrey responded with bathroom humor, joking "I don't think I do sleep well at night, I get up to take leaks." Bruno said he intended to admonish Kerrey that now is not the time for levity, but Kerrey went on to admit that the commission did not answer all the relevant questions, that he came onto the commission late, and lacked both the proper time and funding. We Are Change has confronted many politicians and insiders regarding the events of 9/11. "You try to get in touch with their humanness", Bruhwiler explained. Kerrey's son was born on 9/10/01, and during their exchange, Bruhwiler addressed how the world has changed a lot since that time, with torture and tyranny occuring as a result of 9/11. "You pull the audience in", he explained. "Whoever's listening, they get educated and snap out of whatever false reality they're in." In the hopes that the general public will learn about the issues surrounding 9/11 and government corruption, Bruhwiler suggested that the audience look up world trade center building seven. We Are Change LA took several videos of their exchanges with Kerry, and will release them in the coming weeks. Shanahan remarked on Kerrey's bathroom humor as well. "He's obviously a complelety soulless individual. But when all is said and done, he's a CFR member. What else needs to be said?"
0 Views
08:45:29 04/25/08
Iraq The Weapons Have Been Found !!!
[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 08:45:29 04/25/08
Warning: This Video contains images that are not suitable for Children.Viewing is recommended for 'Mature Audiences' only !It is more than five years since President Bush claimed that the Iraq Invasion would result in the finding of Weapons of Mass Destruction. The Weapons Inspectors that he ordered to leave Iraq, hadn't been able to find them... and here we are, five years later, and they still haven't been found. More importantly, they haven't been used... at least by the Iraqis !According to the Iraq Body Count website, more than 82,000 Iraqi Civilians have suffered violent deaths since Coalition Forces invaded their country. Saddam Hussein never killed them... and if he did have WMDs, he never used them.Weapons of Mass Destruction were used (and continue to be used) in Iraq. However, they are being used 'against' the Iraqi People, rather than by them !There is an old adage which states that 'Even one life lost in a War, is a loss to humanity'. Perhaps it can be said therefore, that the Invasion of Iraq has turned into an absolute catastrophe, because the WMDs used by the United States, in the form of Weapons containing Depleted Uranium; together with the number of unexploded bombs that are scattered throughout Iraq, have ensured that the casualty rate is going to continue to escalate, well after the last bomb has been dropped.We can't undo the harm that has already been done... but by God, we need to do something to put an end to the harm that continues to be done.The images shown in this Video are all recent. They are not examples of the atrocities of Saddam Hussein's Regime. They are examples of what the continued presence of the Coalition Forces is doing to the Iraqi People.The people of Iraq deserve 'Peace'. They will find that 'Peace' when they learn to cast aside their differences, and work together as one Iraqi People.'Negotiation' rather than 'Force' is the way to bring 'Peace' to a Nation. Instilling in the people, an appreciation of their Culture, and an acceptance that if they work together, they can achieve anything !!!
0 Views
22:28:06 04/23/08
War In Iraq Open Your Eyes !!!
[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 22:28:06 04/23/08
WARNING: THIS VIDEO CONTAINS SOME VERY GRAPHIC IMAGES THAT ARE MOST CERTAINLY ‘NOT SUITABLE FOR CHILDREN’ !VIEWING IS RECOMMENDED FOR ‘MATURE AUDIENCES’ ONLY !!!I don’t know what it takes to get people to ‘open their eyes’ to the disgrace that is happening in Iraq… and for us in one voice to demand an end to the shame ! All I can say is that anyone who thinks for one moment that with an estimated hundred thousand or more innocent people having been slaughtered, it couldn’t possibly get any worse… think again ! It would take very little for the situation in Iraq to turn into an all out Civil War, with disastrous consequences not only for the People of Iraq, but for the Coalition Forces that remain in the country.The ‘US Military’ in particular, is not wanted in Iraq… and for very good reason. The motives for ‘Invading’ Iraq under the leadership of George W. Bush are very questionable to say the least… and with the enormous amount of money that was spent on the fantasy world of the Green Zone (and in it, Fortress America)… it is understandable how the Iraqi People who are forced to live in the remains of bombed-out buildings, would find it hard to believe that the American Forces were in Iraq to ‘Help the Iraqi People’ !Things had been bad for the People of Iraq for many years prior to the 2003 Invasion of their country… and the ‘support’ that was given to Saddam Hussein by the US Government, very much contributed to how bad things got for them. Accusations of Saddam’s ‘Possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction’ which led to the 2003 Invasion, ignored the fact that for many years, businesses in the United States and Western Europe had been supplying Saddam with the components necessary to manufacture such Weapons… and even when it was known that Saddam had been using Chemical Weapons… the US Government maintained its support toward Saddam Hussein’s Regime, with disastrous consequences for the Iraqi People !!!Please ‘open your eyes and your heart’ to what is happening in Iraq… and demand an end to the killing of innocent people. Whilst I appreciate that many of the images displayed in this Video are the result of Suicide Bombings… many of those bombings are a consequence of the continued presence of US Forces in Iraq. The suggestion being, that the sooner those Forces are withdrawn from Iraq… the sooner the Iraqi People can experience the Peace they undeniably deserve.If it is deemed necessary for Coalition Forces to remain in Iraq for a determined period… Demand that Weapons be fired only in self-defence… and that the Coalition Forces in no way encourage other parties to use ‘force’ within Iraq.The sole purpose for the Troops to remain in that country, should be to help the Iraqi People. That means putting ‘the needs of the Iraqi People’ first, and ‘Respecting their Culture’ ! Iraq is a Middle Eastern country… and any attempt to Americanise it (as evident within the Green Zone) should be frowned upon by the International Community !!!
