Recently in Around the globe Category

My thanks for Mariel G. for running this new piece adapted from my new book.

My new book is finally here, and it's available right over here. I'll share more information about it in coming days. But in a nutshell, it discusses my background in both conservative Islam and conservative Christianity--with an eye on how both religions have been compromised by their roles within contemporary politics and nationalism.

As one of Gail's "two readers," I find her perceptions of Muslims to be very troubling in this post. No doubt the larger Muslim world has serious issues to work through. I can agree with people ranging from the conservative Bernard Lewis to the liberal Reza Aslan on this. But Gail goes as far as to take Nonia Darwish seriously in the contention that the Muslim world is actively attempting to, uh, infiltrate the West.

To a degree, every proselytizing religion intends to infiltrate the rest of the world. That's the definition of proselytizing. Gail, don't imagine that your evangelical pro-Israel allies don't want the empty churches in Tel Aviv to someday be filled with persons like yourself.

Nonie Darwish reminds me of the former nun, Karen Armstrong, who's become a vocal critic of Christianity and a strong apologist for Muslims. Armstrong criticizes the Judeo-Christian tradition for being too mean to idolaters, but passes over Muslims' intense anti-idolatry. She claims that Christians have sexual hang-ups and that Muslims don't, which seems a stretch. She claims that Islam is more inherently forgiving than Christianity.

Mostly, she seems to be an angry child still railing about the injustices of Daddy. So does Nonie Darwish. Do you really believe Darwish is brave? She's an opportunist, refusing to grow up, because attention and money incentivize her continued immaturity. Both Armstrong and Darwish serve the interests of demagogues who like stirring up action against whole civilizations, by claiming, "But they started it."

Regarding the dilemma of airport profiling, let me go back to a piece from the rival paper that I wrote back in 2002. With some qualifications, i still stand by the basic premise. But having been profiled up and down in Israel in 2006, I find that it's easy for profiling to become obnoxious, which is why I don't much want to go again to Israel anytime soon.

In September, 2008, Oprah Winfrey was the reigning queen of daytime TV chatter. She flatly said no to any talk about then Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin gracing her set. Oprah made no effort to square having then presidential candidate Obama on her show twice with her cold shoulder of Palin, a woman who made history in her own right by being the first female GOP VP pick, and who seemed like a natural for Oprah's show. And since half of her female audience didn't and don't share her politics, they liked it even less that she was Obama's top TV cheerleader. But Oprah was unfazed by the rage she got from many women at ditching Palin, her attitude was it's my show, and I'll do what I want with it and that means I'll invite who I want on the show.
Oprah didn't need Palin to make her, a show, or ratings. Now, however, it's a different story. Though she's still the reigning queen of daytime TV talk and there are millions who wouldn't dream of ending their day without Oprah, her ratings have plunged. The estimated seven million who view her show is about half of what of the number who watched it a decade ago. She's even negotiating to move her show to cable in a couple of years. That's wise, bail from network TV while the money and her name and allure are still there. The relentless war for ratings makes Palin a hot property, and her much buzzed book, Going Rogue, is the hook for the interview.

But there's another reason that Oprah needs to pay back door homage to Palin. Though it sticks in the craw of millions of Palin loathers to admit it, she has a following, a big, and impassioned one. She has greater national political name recognition than any other Republican except McCain. She energizes and rallies the conservatives, and polls say far more Americans self-identify themselves as conservatives than liberals, let alone progressives. Palin's motherly, family values, fundamentalist pitch fascinates even those that personally disdain her. That includes much of the Palin obsessed media. Her politically inept, naivete smacks of a bumbling political innocence that far from being a liability endears her to throngs. This has made her a hot ticket item on the media and on the lecture circuit.

GOP regulars and political pundits routinely laugh her off as a possible GOP presidential candidate in 2012. She's still a favored running joke of late night comics. But this has endeared her to many as a scorned mother-non politician, and that serves to keep her public stock and appeal high.

The irresistible mix of Palin fascination and the sensationalism attached to it draws Oprah to her. Oprah hopes this formula will help push her numbers up. With memories still fresh that Oprah did what she'd never done before and that's not only endorse a presidential candidate, but crusade for him makes the Palin-Oprah talk duet even more tantalizing. Oprah will meticulously observe political decorum with Palin and not mention her unshaken Obama bias. Palin's appearance is billed simply as a talk about her book. But the Oprah-Obama connect will hang heavy in the set air. That's terrific for ratings too; ratings that Oprah can use. Oprah needs Palin for that.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His forthcoming book, How Obama Governed: The Year of Crisis and Challenge (Middle Passage Press) will be released in January 2010.

I'm intrigued by Mr. Philpot's link to the GOP chairman's contention that Americans aren't proud of seeing their prez be honored in such a grand way. To paraphrase some hard-right commentators, "Why do Americans hate America...?"

I rang up my first Huffington Post piece in about two months, here, on related issues.

Gail-Tzipporah seems to suggest that the best thing for Obama to do would be to outright reject the Nobel award. I've rejected two or three of them myself, but eventually my shamelessness got the best of me and I started wearing my medals to Ikea, where they give me a 20% discount for such a display.

I guess my real question is whether America's Fox-watching, God-fearing patriots are as happy to see a Christian president of our great nation receive international distinction as they were to see America fail in its Olympic bid a few days ago.

The good news for Obama is that a major, longtime world leader has rebuked conservatives who've been complaining that their president is a crazy foreign socialist intent on destroying America.

The bad news is that his defender is this guy....

I'm going to disagree with Jonathan regarding Iran. Some critics of Obama are praising him for finally indicating more clearly that he's "outraged" by the violence by the Iranian government -- as if he was previously indicating that he was heartened by it. I've written at greater length on the issue here.

But let's remember that much of that nation is pro-government. If violence continues, we'll soon have martyrs on both sides (if we already don't), and martyrdom is a powerful force in a nation such as that. The more that we talk now, at a moment when talk means nothing, the more someone will accuse us later of having "blood on our hands." Right now, it's the Iranian government that has blood on its hands. And when an opponent is destroying himself, why get involved? That only turns a suicide into a homicide.

This is my piece today for Foreign Policy mag's online version, part of a larger debate about "the Obama effect."