[MuslimZ]

Originally Posted by jinnzaman

What would be more meaningful would be for Muslims to focus on the production of law itself and campaign finance, which is how the system actually operates.

word. completely agree. But what's the point in knocking those who vote in the meantime?

And Sugarberry makes an excellent point. Even though Muslims on average are among the wealthiest, most well-positioned, most educated in America... we do nothing but sit on our asses and whine about our lack of representation in government. It's no use blaming the system when we do nothing substantial to fix it and aren't willing to go into the fields were we can make the most difference. People like you are the exception (mashallah mashallah).

[sally]

Palins coming to my city next week

Also we got John McCain pamphlet thingys in the mail

[jinnzaman]

Originally Posted by MuslimZ

word. completely agree. But what's the point in knocking those who vote in the meantime?

And Sugarberry makes an excellent point. Even though Muslims on average are among the wealthiest, most well-positioned, most educated in America... we do nothing but sit on our asses and whine about our lack of representation in government. It's no use blaming the system when we do nothing substantial to fix it and aren't willing to go into the fields were we can make the most difference. People like you are the exception (mashallah mashallah).

Well, I'm not knocking those who vote so long as they understand the limitations of the system. I'm knocking on those who idealize political participation as only voting and nothing else. This idealization of the political process is preventing us from understanding the structure of power and further promoting our powerlessness.

In order to change a system, you first have to understand how it operates. Other religious, ethnic, ideological, or economic groups have figured out how the system works, but Muslims are so busy proving to the white man how white he is that they've lost track of the real issues.

Islam and Western values are not compatible (unless one posits in post-modernism thought). We do not need to prove our "values" to be legitimate because the political system allows us to practice our faith by and large. If we are not violating any laws, then we should be unapologetic about our values. We do not need to "change" Islam or show that Islam discovered science, democracy, egalitarianism before white people did. Rather than worrying about abstract theory, we should be realistic.

[IbnMardhiyah]

I'm presuming that the percentage of political participation by Muslim communities in the States is comparable to their counterparts in Canada.

The stats here in Canada are shocking - only 14% participation. Even if its higher in the States, say around 20% or 25% [does anyone have solid numbers?] there's still a lot of room for greater participation.

That being said, its finances that control the nature of the game. The Muslim community has to open up its wallet and finance those candidates that will represent our interests. Otherwise duh, we all lose.

[jinnzaman]

Originally Posted by IbnMardhiyah

I'm presuming that the percentage of political participation by Muslim communities in the States is comparable to their counterparts in Canada.

The stats here in Canada are shocking - only 14% participation. Even if its higher in the States, say around 20% or 25% [does anyone have solid numbers?] there's still a lot of room for greater participation.

That being said, its finances that control the nature of the game. The Muslim community has to open up its wallet and finance those candidates that will represent our interests. Otherwise duh, we all lose.

I agree, but financing is only the first step. The real influence comes in legislation. When we develop the ability to draft legislation, we can say that we're truly participating in the American political system.

[MuslimZ]

Originally Posted by jinnzaman

I'm knocking on those who idealize political participation as only voting and nothing else. This idealization of the political process is preventing us from understanding the structure of power and further promoting our powerlessness.

But I don't think anyone really believes this... I sure don't. I'm saying the complete opposite in fact.

In order to change a system, you first have to understand how it operates. Other religious, ethnic, ideological, or economic groups have figured out how the system works, but Muslims are so busy proving to the white man how white he is that they've lost track of the real issues.

This just isn't true. I don't know where you're getting this house-slave image of Muslims from. "Trying to imitate the kuffar" is very low on the list of issues with American Muslims. Unwillingness to put substantial effort behind telling the American Muslim narrative and simply griping while sticking to medical and engineering jobs is of far greater harm.

Islam and Western values are not compatible (unless one posits in post-modernism thought). We do not need to prove our "values" to be legitimate because the political system allows us to practice our faith by and large. If we are not violating any laws, then we should be unapologetic about our values. We do not need to "change" Islam or show that Islam discovered science, democracy, egalitarianism before white people did. Rather than worrying about abstract theory, we should be realistic.

Again, you're making arguments that don't really have anything to do with our current situation. You're absolutely right... we should stop talking about abstract theory and focus on practicality. Painting the situation as an irrevocable clash of values between Islam and the West is most definitely not practical nor helpful to our cause. In fact, that only adds fuel to the fire of Muslim blowhards who say there is no reason to get involved with the political process and would rather just scoff and shout from afar.

[IbnMardhiyah]

Originally Posted by jinnzaman

I agree, but financing is only the first step. The real influence comes in legislation. When we develop the ability to draft legislation, we can say that we're truly participating in the American political system.

I'm not sure I follow.

How does a certain community "draft" legislation? Do you mean when we have a substantial number of elected Muslim officials? Or when we wield substantial lobbying power?

[kenneth]

Ralph Nader for President in 2008 — Join with us today

Untitled Document

Here are the links for the Green Party and Ralph Nader's independent campaign. I thought about including the links to other parties/candidates but since i really disagree with them, you'll have find those on your own.

There ARE alternatives for voters in America.

[kenneth]

Democracy Now! | Radio and TV News

just thought i'd share a bit of democracy now!'s coverage since it is the BEST alternative to the mainstream swill that passes for journalism these days. . . .


Crowd Member Yells Obama Threat at Palin Rally
On the campaign trail, Senators Barack Obama and John McCain square off tonight in a town-hall debate in Nashville, Tennessee. Republicans have intensified attacks on Obama as polls show McCain losing ground in key battleground states, including Ohio. On Monday, Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin continued to invoke Obama’s connection to Bill Ayers, a former member of the militant 1960s antiwar group, the Weather Underground.

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin: “I am just so fearful that this is not a man who sees America the way that you and I see America: as the greatest source for good in this world. I am afraid this is someone who sees America as imperfect
enough to work with a former domestic terrorist who had targeted his own country.”

Obama was eight years old when Ayers was a Weather Underground member. Today Ayers is a tenured professor and leading expert on education reform. Ayers and Obama have few ties beyond living in the same Chicago neighborhood and having once served together on the board of two nonprofits. Ayers also hosted an event for Obama when he first ran for the State Senate. As Palin spoke about Obama, an audience member yelled out “kill him.” It’s unclear if Palin heard the remark, but she did not respond.

Aides: McCain Seeks to Avoid Economy Talk
Top McCain aides have recently admitted to trying to steer the campaign’s focus away from the economy. In an interview with the New York Daily News, an unnamed McCain strategist said, “If we keep talking about the economic crisis, we’re going to lose.” And on Saturday, McCain adviser Grep Strimple told the Washington Post, “We are looking forward to turning a page on this financial crisis and getting back to discussing [Obama’s] aggressively liberal record and how he will be too risky for Americans.” On Monday, Obama responded during a campaign stop in Asheville, North Carolina.

Sen. Barack Obama: “I was a little surprised over the past couple of days to hear Senator McCain say, or Senator McCain’s campaign say, that we want to turn the page on discussions about the economy and a campaign—a member of Senator McCain’s campaign saying today that if we keep on talking about the economic crisis, we’ll lose. I’ve got news for the McCain campaign, the American people are losing right now. They’re losing their jobs, they’re losing their healthcare, they’re losing their homes, they’re losing their savings. I cannot imagine anything more important to talk about than the economic crisis.”

McCain, meanwhile, was in New Mexico. He accused Obama of failing to respond to the economic crisis.

Sen. John McCain: “Even after he refused to lift a finger to prevent this crisis, when the crisis hit, he was missing in action. He didn’t even start making calls to round up votes until after the rescue bill failed in the House and the markets crashed. We continue to see the price of delay today as the markets continue to fall. Today, the Dow has fallen below 10,000, and yet members of his own party said they felt no pressure to vote for the bill. Why didn’t Senator Obama work to pass this bill from the start? Why did he let it fail and drag out this crisis for a full week before doing a thing to help pass it?”

McCain Sat on Board of Group Linked to Central American Death Squads
As Republicans continue to talk about Bill Ayers, McCain himself is coming under new scrutiny for his ties to a group linked to former Nazi collaborators and right-wing Central American deaths squads. During the early 1980s, McCain was a board member of the US Council for World Freedom, which took part in efforts to overthrow Nicaragua’s Sandinista government. The Council later went on to become a major figure in the Iran-Contra scandal. The Reagan administration defied a congressional ban to secretly funnel weapons to the Contras, the US-backed proxy group organized to violently overthrow the Sandinistas. McCain said he resigned from the Council’s board in 1984.

McCain Would Cut $1.3 Trillion from Medicare, Medicaid
In other campaign news, a McCain aide has disclosed the Republican candidate’s health plan would result in a major reduction to spending on Medicare and Medicaid. The Wall Street Journal reports the plan could result in cuts of up to $1.3 trillion over ten years. The cuts would be necessary to keep a McCain campaign pledge for a “budget neutral” health plan. Medicaid and Medicare provide government-backed healthcare to seniors, poor families and the disabled. The programs have already seen sharp funding cuts under the Bush administration.

[jinnzaman]

Originally Posted by IbnMardhiyah

I'm not sure I follow.

How does a certain community "draft" legislation? Do you mean when we have a substantial number of elected Muslim officials? Or when we wield substantial lobbying power?

Well, one thing is to get Muslims elected, but the other ways you do it is by keeping in communication with your elected officials and recommend them to write or vote on legislation in a particular manner. To make the work easier for them, you do all of the research and make the major points in the form of policy papers and what not. Most politicians don't write, let alone read, their own legislation. They get a lot of help from other people.

However, in order to get their attention, one has to either give them votes or money, the latter having more influence than the former.

[IbnMardhiyah]

Originally Posted by jinnzaman

Well, one thing is to get Muslims elected, but the other ways you do it is by keeping in communication with your elected officials and recommend them to write or vote on legislation in a particular manner. To make the work easier for them, you do all of the research and make the major points in the form of policy papers and what not. Most politicians don't write, let alone read, their own legislation. They get a lot of help from other people.

That's pretty much the same as lobbying, isn't it?

However, in order to get their attention, one has to either give them votes or money, the latter having more influence than the former.

True. Except when it comes to cases where voting on XYZ issue will cost them their seat. That's when votes matter more.

[jinnzaman]

Originally Posted by MuslimZ

But I don't think anyone really believes this... I sure don't. I'm saying the complete opposite in fact.

I think a lot of people believe this. If you ask the average Muslim the definition of participating in a democracy, they would probably just limit it to voting and nothing else. You're the exception to this understanding, not the rule.

Most communities organize voter drives, not campaign donations. In terms of national organizations, we have many, but the only one that really does anything effective is CAIR. However, they've got their own shortcomings on this issue. They don't really provide any legal services but team up with the ACLU, which is fine, in order to really make change, we have to develop some of our institutions that cater specifically to our needs.

This just isn't true. I don't know where you're getting this house-slave image of Muslims from. "Trying to imitate the kuffar" is very low on the list of issues with American Muslims. Unwillingness to put substantial effort behind telling the American Muslim narrative and simply griping while sticking to medical and engineering jobs is of far greater harm.

There's an entire discourse on how Islam is compatible with democracy and many of the underlying assumptions of these arguments is predicated on the implicit superiority of Enlightenment era values. Other than the author of "A Fundamental Fear", Bobby S. Sayid, I'm not aware of anyone whose embraced post-modernism (besides traditional 'Ulema.

In terms of blaming only Muslims that go into the hard sciences, thats the general trend, but there are a lot of Muslims who go into the liberal arts and haven't done anything productive about it. Most of the people I know who did political science ended up in a government job and working for the establishment. Some went into law, but either ended up pursuing purely selfish careers such as doing corporate law. Their's only a handful of Muslim lawyers who are very strongly devoted to civil rights, immigrant's rights, and almost all of them have fallen into the dichotomy of liberalism-conservativism of the mainstream discourse. In other words, they ended up working for the establishment as well.

The truth is that we need to break the stranglehold of the bipartisan system. Thats the only way real change in America is going to come. The bipartisan system is what enables corporations and financial elites to direct the resources of this country and are the main proponents of American hegemony.

Again, you're making arguments that don't really have anything to do with our current situation. You're absolutely right... we should stop talking about abstract theory and focus on practicality. Painting the situation as an irrevocable clash of values between Islam and the West is most definitely not practical nor helpful to our cause. In fact, that only adds fuel to the fire of Muslim blowhards who say there is no reason to get involved with the political process and would rather just scoff and shout from afar.

No, recognizing that Islam and Western values are not, at their core, compatible, isn't theoretical at all, its highly practical because you understand the limitations of the discourse between the two and can focus precisely on areas of commonality.

[jinnzaman]

Originally Posted by IbnMardhiyah

That's pretty much the same as lobbying, isn't it?

Yuppers.

True. Except when it comes to cases where voting on XYZ issue will cost them their seat. That's when votes matter more.

Right, but the general rule is that it won't affect their votes. Voters tend to be dumb, thats why incumbents can stay in office for a relatively long time. There's the general rule and there are exceptions. The general rule is that lobbies can influence politicians more through campaign contributions then voters can. I've got a few journals that have done research on this and its pretty fascinating how elitist the American political system is.