There's a strong Arab community near my area and I often go here to do my grocery shopping. One time I went to an Egyptian shop to buy some bulgur, and then there was a riot in Egypt. Then I went to a Yemeni restaurant in Brooklyn for some Salta and then there was a riot in Yemen. Nowadays I goto a Moroccon restaurant to get tagine for dinner, and now it looks to be a protest in Morocco.

Coincidence?!?!?!?!?!?!

Absolutely you have a right to your opinion! I was quite clear that you can disagree with her.

It seems to me that you do concede my main point in your sentence that begins "She may not be a shill for the Government." That is what I was objecting to -- the ascribing of motivations.

Seems to me you are conceding that indeed you don't know her motivations.

So we agree! I like it when we can agree!

This is just a pet peeve of mine. Bugs me. I have observed how, in both public and private life, the presumption that someone knows someone else's motivations can lead to an escalation of tensions rather than to true debate about issues.

I struggle with it myself. It has taken years of practice to back away from statements like that.

I'm a great person in a crisis, after all this practice. Just recently, my dad got sick and his wife and family got seriously weird towards him. I managed to hold the center and didn't let it descend into emotional chaos, as both sides flailed away, ascribing motivations right and left.

I recognize that it is my pet peeve. It comes up a lot in the sift comments. Most times, I ignore it.

Couldn't tell you why this time I felt the need to engage. Maybe because I adore Rachel so much? Felt the need to defend her from an unfair attack? (Please note, I'm not saying you have to agree with her. Just that the ascribing motivations felt unfair. Which you agree is correct.)

Blah blah blah. Pet peeves. Annoying, aren't they?



In reply to this comment by Duckman33:
"Towards the end of the interview (~8:05) they begin discussing Assange and WikiLeaks, where she characterizes him as a self-describing "hero" who simply thinks information should be free for the sake of being free and an anarchist. She claims that the only information released was either minor or "unsafe" (so which is it?), yet nevertheless displayed inherent weaknesses in US information security protections.

I assume that she considers 'minor' many of the events revealed by the leaks, such as:
* Pfizer's pressuring/blackmail of Nigerian prosecutors to settle over the investigation of illegal tests of drugs on sick children
* US's role in sabotaging Cancun climate talks
* Cover up of US drone strikes that killed innocent civilians in Yemen by Yemeni and US officials
* The revelation that US armed forces turned a blind eye to Iraqi police torture and murder of prisoners
* Shell Oil's boastful admissions of infiltration in to Nigerian govt.
* etc., etc.
* etc."


LOL. What sir am I guessing at or presuming exactly? And what reasons am I "making up"? As stated above. If she's repeating the bullshit we hear on the "news" every day from our own elected officials, ("characterizes him as a self-describing "hero" who simply thinks information should be free for the sake of being free and an anarchist".) then she's certainly not in favor of his actions. Since she claims to be a journalist, why the hell isn't she doing her job? As the lawyer in the CNN video that's in the #2 spot pointed out several times to the CNN "Reporter" about her doing HER job. She may not be a shill for the Government, but she definitely isn't asking the right questions, nor is she blaming the correct people. She should be calling out the people who did the things in the documents instead of killing the messenger.

That's MY opinion. See, I have a right to mine as well. Don't recall ever saying no-one else has a right to theirs. But you certainly implied that I have no right to mine since it's clealrly: "just plain wrong headedness"

In reply to this comment by bareboards2:
So here's my pet peeve.... folks who think they know the motivations and intentions of other people without asking them.

You can disagree with Rachel about her point of view. To presume that you know what motivates her is just plain wrong headedness.

I see the same thing outside of the public realm, in every day life, all the time. I see it in posts here on the sift all the time.

How can you possibly know she is a shill for the government? You are guessing. You cannot possibly know that.

Disagree her opinion about Assange and Wikileaks for your own good reasons. I don't see that it is necessary to make up reasons.

In reply to this comment by Duckman33:
Sorry, I have to disagree. I'm not a big fan of anyone who thinks what Assange is doing is wrong/criminal. We should not be lied to by our own Government, period. They should not be allowed to continue to do things in our name that make America and the American citizens look bad. Their actions put our lives in danger. And quite frankly, I'm not very happy knowing there's people in the world that want to kill me because of things the American Government has done in my name without my knowledge.

She's proving herself to be just another talking head/shill for the Government agenda. In my eyes, at this point she and MSNBC (I'll also throw CNN in there for good measure.) for the most part are no better than the lying morons at FAUX NEWZ. They just have a different slant on their lies. One network lies in favor of the right, the other for the left. It's really quite disgusting the way these people sell their souls, and sell out the American people to have money, and fame. I really thought she was one of the good ones. Now, I have changed my mind.

From the liner notes to the film:

"Q: First and foremost—a year later—how and where is Nejmia? Do you keep in touch with her? What is she like now? What has been the effect of this documentary on Nejmia? On the town?

KHADIJA AL-SALAMI: Seven months after shooting the film, Nejmia’s father stopped her from going to school and ordered her to wear the veil. A year later, this film won first prize at the Beirut Film Festival. The president of Yemen was visiting France at that time and heard about the prize. He asked me to show him the film. I thought he would not like it because it shows society looking down on women, but I was wrong. He was drawn by Nejmia’s personality, and at the end of the film he asked me to tell Nejmia’s family that he would like to pay for her education. I was very happy to hear that and thought that was the best prize I could ever get for the film. Now, Nejmia is back at school. I think it is the most important element for a better and independent future. The more a woman is educated, the more she knows her rights and is able to defend them, the more useful she will be to her family and to society as a whole. The film was not screened on Yemeni TV because they are not accustomed to such controversial subject matter."

The U.S. government on Monday agreed to release a Yemeni surgeon who reportedly treated al Qaida wounded at Tora Bora in Afghanistan under a new review ordered by President Barack Obama meant to empty the prison camps here by January 2010.

Ayman Batarfi, 38, had told a military review panel in 2005 that he was a humanitarian worker who found himself at the battle of Tora Bora in 2001 while Osama bin Laden was in the area, according to a Pentagon transcript. He said he'd met bin Laden while the doctor was burying the dead from American air assaults, but that he did not respect the al Qaida leader, who he called "a coward."

(source)

It was during that same battle that US troops were ordered to stand down and not to shoot if they saw Osama bin Laden.

Great post - I've got some Algerian Jewish music I'm gonna post at some point!

I did a bit of research into the Jewish community in Yemen while I was studying Islamic law. In traditional Rabbinic law primogeniture is practised - meaning that the oldest male inherits everything. Traditionally Yemen has always been a majority Muslim state. While Jewish courts were allowed they were subordinate to Islamic courts. When inheritance cases were settled in Jewish courts the judge would apply traditional Rabbinic law and the women would inherit nothing. Unhappy with this situation Jewish women would appeal to the Islamic courts. Under traditional Islamic law women are guaranteed a share of the inheritance - normally equivalent to about a third of the male's share. The Jewish women would claim allegiance to which ever school of Islamic law would ensure them the greatest share of inheritance.

The Yemeni Jews are also responsible for Zoug - a spicy chili and coriander condiment - my all time favourite relish!