So i have been off the blogosphere for a while.

I have been pre-occupied with work and some academic obligations. Fortunately i am working on my next blog posts concentrating on:

- Obama’s victory and Inaguration

- Online Actvism

- The right to education campaign.

    and others.. so look out for recent posts in the next couple of days.

So, the last topic i posted about was with regards to the challenge by Michael Phelps against Barack Obama’s domination of Facebook.

Well, the Verdict just came in.. It seems that Phelps fan base are no challenge to Obama’s resilient support base.

As of September 7th 2008…..

Michael Phelps has 1,552,545 fans.. compared to

Barack Obama’s 1, 708,536 supporters..

Its simple- OBAMA is KING of Facebook.

Okay, i am getting off to grab something to eat..

So it was by coincidence that i ran into the Biggest Online Social Story of the Month.

Will Barack Obama be overthrown as the most popular entity on facebook?

Several pundits believe so. And who is the man who will replace him? The Olympian and 8 gold medalist Michael Phelps.

Michael Phelps has already crossed the titanic million fan threshold. In fact at 7:47 p.m. Phelps had over 1,345,040 fans compared to Senator Obama’s 1,371,890.

We shall soon find out …

Well whatever the outcome.

I will like to congratulate Mr. Phelps for winning 8 Gold Medals, that is an accomplishment he should be proud of.

Some Background:

The RNC has always had a better fundraising network than the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the executive apparatus of the Democratic Party. The most recent Federal Election Commission (FEC) reports this discrepancy. For instance, in the month of June, The RNC fund raised 26 million compared to the 22.4 million fundraised by the DNC.

Amongst the candidates, there is no comparison. Obama out fundraises his competitor John McCain at a ratio of 2.5:1 in favor of Obama.

Since this election is centered around the theme of Change and Obama has successfully being able to communicate his message of change to voters, especially to young voters. McCain faces an unprecedented challenge to win over young voters. A good illustration of the challenges he faces in attracting this important young demographic that could impact the outcome of this year’s election, one does not need to look further than facebook, the popular social Network. As of Tuesday July 29^th 2008, John McCain had 183,833 compared to Senator Barack Obama’s army of 1,228,319 supporters.

Senator McCain’s response is the Barackbook, a new website and facebook application that parodies Facebook.com, the popular social networking site. The RNC message is simple – obama is inexperienced and lacks good judgement. On the parody site Obama has seven “friends” that includes convicted Chicago businessman Antoin “Tony” Rezko and William Ayers, a member of the Weather Underground during the 1970’s.

Interestingly - In addition to a feed page displaying activity between Obama and his “friends,” the RNC site also includes a page featuring YouTube videos about Obama, a page that facilitates donations to the RNC, an RSS feed of information from GOP.com, among other pages.

Is this effective? Well it caught my attention and numerous other progressive and conservative bloggers. We shall find out on November 4^th 2008.

So on Tuesday, July 29th 2008, the United States of America’s House of Representatives passed a resolution apologizing to African-Americans for slavery and the era of Jim Crow.

This is a historic day of the historic 2008 year, where an African- American president could be elected as its first black president. Could this be part of a trend in North America?

Remarkably the executive branch of government is Republican but the House of representatives is controlled by the democrats. There has been no such apology from any federal branch of government for the approximately 211 years of recorded History of Slavery. It was between 1654 until 1865, that slavery for life was legal within the boundaries of the present United States.

The non binding resolution, which passed on a voice vote, was introduced by Rep. Steve Cohen, a white lawmaker who represents a majority black district in Memphis, Tennessee.

The resolution however does not address the controversial issue of reparations.

In passing the resolution, the House of Representatives also acknowledged the “injustice, cruelty, brutality and inhumanity of slavery and Jim Crow.”

This year, Canada also made an apology to a marginalized group and the native land owners of Canada, the Aboriginal Nations of Canada. Prime Minister Stephen Harper made the apology in a minority controlled parliament in Ottawa, in front of hundreds of ex-schoolchildren. The schools operated from the late 19th Century until the 1990s, although most of them shut in the 1970s.

Canada has apologized for forcing about 150,000 aboriginal children to attend state-funded Christian boarding schools aimed at assimilating them.

So could 2008 be the year of apologies? It surely seems so.

I would like to commend the politicians for making those heart warming apologies; however actions speak better than words. It is important for the victims of slavery, the current disadvantaged descendants of slaves be afforded the education, health care and access to well paying jobs that their forefathers were prevented from access. If no action is taken soon, modern slavery would continue to evolve within those marginalized communities and possibly in another 200 years, another bunch of well intentioned politicans will make an apology on behalf of the current governments.

Earlier on last month, i wrote about the state of Islamaphobia that exist in North America and specifically in the political process.

Senator Barack Obama who is currently running for the highest political office in the United States reacted to the controversial satirical cover the famous New Yorker Magazine released earlier on this month.

Here is what he had to say on CNN’s “Larry King Live” last night to discuss the controversial New Yorker cover depicting him as a Muslim and his wife Michelle as a militant.

“Well, I know it was the New Yorker’s attempt at satire,” Obama told Larry King. “I don’t think they were entirely successful with it. But you know what, it’s a cartoon, Larry, and that’s why we’ve got the First Amendment. And I think the American people are probably spending a little more time worrying about what’s happening with the banking system and the housing market, and what’s happening in Iraq and Afghanistan, than a cartoon. So I haven’t spent a lot of time thinking about it.”

When King asked if he was bothered by reports that some Americans believed that he is Muslim and was raised in a Muslim home, and how he would remedy that, Obama replied:

“Well, you know, by getting on Larry King and telling everybody I’m a Christian and I wasn’t raised in a Muslim home and I pledge allegiance to the flag and, you know, all the things that have been reported in these e-mails are completely untrue and have been debunked again and again and again. So, hey, all you can do is just tell the truth and trust in the American people that, over time, they’re going to know what the truth is.”

He also stated his belief that the cover was more of an insult to Muslim Americans.

“You know, this is actually an insult against Muslim Americans, something that we don’t spend a lot of time talking about. And sometimes I’ve been derelict in pointing that out. You know, there are wonderful Muslim Americans all across the country who are doing wonderful things. And for this to be used as sort of an insult or to raise suspicions about me I think is unfortunate. And it’s not what America is all about.”

I applaud his emphasis on the effects of the cover in demonazing American muslims. It’s a slow start in the battle against islamaphobia, but atleast there is a point of reference.

What do you think of Obama’s opinions?

As a child who lived in the Sudan, which in my opinion is a beautiful country blessed with vast resources, a beautiful people and untapped potential. As a son of the Sudan with family and roots in the region, I am deeply concerned about the conflict in Darfur and the lack of progress in resolving this complicated crisis.

As a witness of the eradication of a legitimate political process in Sudan through the authoritarian control of the country by loyalists of President Omar al-Bashir in a coup in 1989, I should be the first person applauding the actions of the ICC on President Omar Al-Bashir, but I am not.

You might wonder why? Well my answer is simple and it can be summarized in one word - hypocrisy.

Some background:

The International Criminal Court (ICC) announced that on Monday July 14^th 2008 an indictment will be made in the Hague naming President Omar al-Bashir and at least one of his senior officials in connection with the widespread displacement, murder and rape committed by government troops and their militias against the people of Darfur.

ICC prosecutor Luiz Moreno Ocampo is expected to present evidence against the Sudanese leader and ask the court to issue a warrant for his arrest - the second time in history a sitting African president has been indicted for war crimes. In 2003, a U.N.-created tribunal indicted then-Liberian President Charles Taylor.

Khartoum, which has not signed onto the court’s statute, has rejected the legitimacy of the ICC and refused to turn over two Sudanese indicted last year.

Why is this relevant? The ICC is a court of last resort and legally has jurisdiction over citizens of the 106 countries that have signed and ratified the international treaty that gives the court its mandate. The United States of America like Sudan has NOT signed onto the court’s statute. Therefore hypothetically no citizen of the United States or Sudan should be prosecuted by the court.

So why has the ICC decided to go after the sitting president of Sudan Mr. Omar al-Bashir for crimes against the people of Sudan rather than George W. Bush for crimes committed against the Iraqi people or then-President P.W. Botha for crimes against the people of South Africa or the Chinese President Hu Jintao for crimes against the people of Burma? – The ICC claims that it only tries those accused of the gravest crimes. Is this is a fair analysis? I don’t think so. I believe the people who were prosecuted and murdered in Iraq, South Africa, Burma and others would beg to differ.

The hypocrisy is evident. How does the ICC expect favorable world opinion or in this specific point and case the relatively important opinion of the Sudanese people to be favorable to such a measure?

Although I disagree with the political process in Sudan under its leadership by President Omar al-Bashir and I am disgusted by the inhumane treatment of the people living in the region of Darfur and the inaction of the government in protecting its citizens. I still adamantly believe that the Sudanese people through its judiciary are ultimately responsibility to prosecute Mr. Bashir of crimes committed within the sovereign state of Sudan and not a pretentious process that could be described as a “Kangaroo court” at the ICC.

Some questions to ponder.

Would it be a violation of the country’s sovereignty and would have consequences? Absolutely and the consequences are not immediately measurable, but insecurity and instability are very imminent.

The effects could spread to the political environment of the Middle East. It is therefore no surprise that the Sudanese people are a very proud people who are not fans of American foreign policy or international involvement in what they contemplate as domestic policy. This move could be met by heavy resistance from the people of sudan, specifically those loyal to the Khartoum regime. This will jeopardies the peace process that was signed not too long ago in Naivasha.

According to the Associated Press – Sudan has asked for an emergency meeting of Arab foreign ministers ahead of the expected indictment, according to Arab League spokesman Abdel Aleem el-Abyad Saturday.

The outcome of the meeting will be understood next week.

Who would benefit from this? Almost no one. The conflict in Darfur is too complex and the attempts to resolve it are too delicate for so one-sided and blunt an approach. The two previous cases where incumbent presidents were indicted by international courts (though not the ICC) were very different from Sudan. The Yugoslav president, Slobodan Milosevic, was under military attack from Nato. Negotiations had been cut off. Ultimately, they were renewed but only with the good offices of the Russians who had shown no enthusiasm for the Hague tribunal’s indictment. Charles Taylor, the Liberian president, was indicted by a special hybrid court for his activities across the border in Sierra Leone and at a time when the two countries were virtually at war.

The conflict in Darfur is essentially an internal issue with multiple facets, involving the government and various rebel groups, as well as criss-crossing tribal disputes. Atrocities have been committed on all sides. The degree of blame, the extent of the killing and the number of victims are hotly disputed. A hybrid African Union and United Nations peacekeeping force is in place. Although Bashir and his government have put up a range of obstructions to make it hard for them to deploy quickly and operate effectively, UN member governments are also at fault for failing to supply the men and equipment that they pledged. Hundreds of UN and non-governmental agencies are on the ground providing food, water and other aid to the camps for the thousands of displaced victims of violence. The situation on the ground is dire. Hijackings of aid vehicles and food, mainly done by rebel groups, are increasing, with the number of incidents for the first six months of 2008 already equal to the total for the whole of last year. The aid agencies have to work with the consent of the government. Short of a hostile invasion designed to topple the regime in Khartoum – a decision that would be foolish and sure to make the situation even worse – there is no other choice for them but to deal with Bashir and his people. As for the chance of finding a political solution to the Darfur crisis, the AU and UN are conducting fitful talks with Darfur’s rebels in the hope of getting them to resume negotiations with the government. How could the mediators expect to persuade the rebels to be reasonable if the other side’s president has been charged with war crimes?

Nor is Darfur the only seat of tension in Sudan. The peace deal between north and south, which ended a conflict that went on longer than Darfur’s, is still fragile. What would happen to the coalition government that currently runs Sudan in preparation for a referendum on the south’s potential secession? Could the Sudanese People’s Liberation Movement remain in government with a party whose leader has been indicted? What of the road map for the disputed province of Abyei under which UN troops now patrol an area where there was high tension earlier this year? Would UNMIS have to freeze its contacts with Bashir?

The conflict between justice and pragmatism is never easy to resolve. Holding people to account for their actions is a desirable goal, but it has to be weighed against the difficulties it creates if the indictees still hold power. Bashir is not Pinochet, who was long out of office as well as out of favour in Chile when he was indicted (by a foreign judge, not by an international court). The list of practical problems that would flow from an indictment of Sudan’s president is long. It far outweighs the benefits. The ICC’s prosecutor should think again.

The ICC has to be consistent when applying the law or it will quickly loose credibility and be accused of being an arm length prosecuting tool of western powers and nothing more.

]]> http://alwayshope.ca/?feed=rss2&p=19 http://alwayshope.ca/?p=18 http://alwayshope.ca/?p=18#comments Tue, 01 Jul 2008 22:59:45 +0000 Walied Khogali http://alwayshope.ca/?p=18

The first president of post-apartheid South Africa and the greatest statesman of the 20th Century Nelson mandela will no longer need special permission to travel to the United States.

Why? He is being removed off the United States Terror Watch list.

The Nobel Peace Prize winner and international symbol of freedom - Nelson Mandela s was flagged on U.S. terrorist watch lists and needs special permission to visit the USA. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice calls the situation “embarrassing,” and some members of Congress vowed to fix it.

The requirement applies to former South African leader Mandela and other members of South Africa’s governing African National Congress (ANC), the once-banned anti-Apartheid organization. In the 1970s and ’80s, the ANC was officially designated a terrorist group by the country’s ruling white minority. Other countries, including the United States, followed suit.

Because of this, Rice told a Senate committee recently, her department has to issue waivers for ANC members to travel to the USA.

If the Occupation was to end in palestine and there is finally peace in the middle east, could leaders of HAMAS be next to get off the list?

Apparently Not.

The fact that Islamaphobia is on the rise in the United States is depressing. The fact that political candidates distant themselves from the religion known as Islam for fear of political ramifications through association to terrorism has become a sad reality.

However not too long ago another religious group fell victim to this culture of fear, fostered by the government and media. The country was Germany and the religious group was Judaism. The result was millions of Jews being massacred while the world remained silent.

In 2008, the world decided to remain silent while the Muslim community in the West continues to be demonized by certain politician’s and civic leaders in private and public.

In the highly contested U.S elections, there has been no discussion or an acknowledgment of the existence of Islamaphobia by most of the candidates.

Will we continue to remain silent?

I chose to speak up.

McCain’s Spiritual Guide

]]> http://alwayshope.ca/?feed=rss2&p=17 http://alwayshope.ca/?p=16 http://alwayshope.ca/?p=16#comments Mon, 23 Jun 2008 12:18:50 +0000 Walied Khogali http://alwayshope.ca/?p=16

Today, i got a facebook message from my friend Teji, who send me a link of a youtube clip of a rising comedian named Sugar Sammy, who in Teji’s opinion is the next Russell Peters.

“Sugar Sammy” is a really funny guy, i would be bold enought and suggest that Sammy will be more successful than Russell Peters, thanks to Mr. Peters who has opened the doors for young desi comedians.

If you would like to check out some of his material, please click on the links below:

WARNING: The content in this clips may not be suitable for a young audience. ( I always wanted to say that!)

Sugar Sammy - Part 1

Sugar Sammy - Part 2

Sugar Sammy - Part 3