Like most Miss America pagents, this year's contest followed with controversy too. Whats different this time is that it also revolves around the fact that the winner is a Muslim. Soon after winning the Miss America title, and becoming the first Muslim woman to ever win the contest, scandals surrounded her. Her pictures were found in which she was strip dancing for a Detroit area radio station during a small radio show competition. Now the question is whether she should get to keep her tittle or not.
But whats funny about this is that Rima is actually wearing more clothes in the striping competition than in her pictures for the beauty contest. Also, this contest had taken place three years ago, and no stripping had actually taken place. A reason for the exaggeration of this issue is that many people think Morgan Woolard, Miss Oklahoma USA 2010, should have been crowned the champion. There might also be a racist reason since people might not want a Muslim girl to win an American competition. Others, like commentator and one time Bush appointee Daniel Pipes, are suspicious about women like Rima. Pipes lists five Muslim women who have all won beauty contests in the last five years, starting with Rima Fakih and ending with 2006’s Miss England, and 2005’s Miss Nottingham. He thinks that its suspicious how Muslim women have been winning some of the biggest beauty pagents in America and Europe. What people like Pipes need to understand though, is that women like Rima win only because of their beauty and their smartness; nothing else.
New York Post editorial.
Dear New York Post editor,
In your editorial "A firing Squad for Faisal" you are suggesting execution of Faisal Shahzad, the man who dropped off a car bomb in Times Square, through a firing squad. But would this really solve the problem of terrorism in the United States? Like you said, executing Faisal would only show the rest of the world our anger towards terrorism; but this is an emotion that the terrorists would love to see. The terrorists are only attacking us to cause chaos amongst us. We need to instead stand our ground and remain confident. If we trust our government and our security, we have nothing/nobody to fear.
Mayor Bloomberg said that he wouldn't abide any "backlash against Pakistani or Muslim New Yorkers." And I support him since taking action against all Muslims would be wrong and would worsen the situation. If we punish innocent Muslims for what a radical Muslim has done, we would end up making many more enemies. Also, if we murder innocent Muslims and/or ruin their lives, how are we any different from the terrorists?
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/firing_squad_for_faisal_cDppiA9UbYxmsgo4eWXknI
In your editorial "A firing Squad for Faisal" you are suggesting execution of Faisal Shahzad, the man who dropped off a car bomb in Times Square, through a firing squad. But would this really solve the problem of terrorism in the United States? Like you said, executing Faisal would only show the rest of the world our anger towards terrorism; but this is an emotion that the terrorists would love to see. The terrorists are only attacking us to cause chaos amongst us. We need to instead stand our ground and remain confident. If we trust our government and our security, we have nothing/nobody to fear.
Mayor Bloomberg said that he wouldn't abide any "backlash against Pakistani or Muslim New Yorkers." And I support him since taking action against all Muslims would be wrong and would worsen the situation. If we punish innocent Muslims for what a radical Muslim has done, we would end up making many more enemies. Also, if we murder innocent Muslims and/or ruin their lives, how are we any different from the terrorists?
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/firing_squad_for_faisal_cDppiA9UbYxmsgo4eWXknI
Fox News Editorial
Dear Fox News Editor,
In your editorial named "5 Places You'll (Probably) Never Find a Supreme Court Justice" you cleverly emphasise what America will loose with the retirement of Associate Justice John Paul Stevens. With the admission of nominee Associate Justice John Paul Stevens, a lot of things will change in the US Supreme Court. For example, like you said, if Kenan is confirmed, single member of the Supreme Court will have attended Harvard or Yale. I agree with you that these 9 Justices will be making decisions involving healthcare, enviornment, terrorism, etc. even though they don't have much practical knowledge about these issues. Also, with the retirement of Stevens, the Supreme Court will loose its only US army veteran and a Protestant Justice. In United States, being a Protestant has a lot of significance as the earliest settlers and colonies were mainly Protestant.
You also mentioned the different ways to interpret the constitution by a Justice. One way could be by simply following what the constitution says and by believing that it cannot be "distorted" or open to any interpration. But if this was the case, the Court wouldn't really have much significance since its not doing anything special. The other way would be to interpret the Constitution in our own way and allow it to be ammended as scenarios change. To further strengthen your argument I would say that this is the real role of the Supreme Court and this is what the Founding Fathers themselves wanted. It can be seen in the Necessary and Proper Clause which allowed a broader interpration of the Constitution and allowed ammendments to be made as times change.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/05/12/peter-roff-horace-cooper-elena-kagan-supreme-court-harvard-yale-nascar-church/
In your editorial named "5 Places You'll (Probably) Never Find a Supreme Court Justice" you cleverly emphasise what America will loose with the retirement of Associate Justice John Paul Stevens. With the admission of nominee Associate Justice John Paul Stevens, a lot of things will change in the US Supreme Court. For example, like you said, if Kenan is confirmed, single member of the Supreme Court will have attended Harvard or Yale. I agree with you that these 9 Justices will be making decisions involving healthcare, enviornment, terrorism, etc. even though they don't have much practical knowledge about these issues. Also, with the retirement of Stevens, the Supreme Court will loose its only US army veteran and a Protestant Justice. In United States, being a Protestant has a lot of significance as the earliest settlers and colonies were mainly Protestant.
You also mentioned the different ways to interpret the constitution by a Justice. One way could be by simply following what the constitution says and by believing that it cannot be "distorted" or open to any interpration. But if this was the case, the Court wouldn't really have much significance since its not doing anything special. The other way would be to interpret the Constitution in our own way and allow it to be ammended as scenarios change. To further strengthen your argument I would say that this is the real role of the Supreme Court and this is what the Founding Fathers themselves wanted. It can be seen in the Necessary and Proper Clause which allowed a broader interpration of the Constitution and allowed ammendments to be made as times change.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/05/12/peter-roff-horace-cooper-elena-kagan-supreme-court-harvard-yale-nascar-church/
The New York times editorial
Dear New York times editor,
I am referring to your editorial, "What Haiti Needs Right Now". I agree with you that Haiti doesn't need to worry about money or any kind of aid for its reconstruction plan. After Haiti's disastrous earthquake on January 12th, it has been trying to reconstruct as fast as possible. This would usually be extremely hard for one of the poorest countries in America, but not for Haiti since it has supporters and donors all over the world. About $800 million has already been committed to relief efforts by more than 150 countries and organizations.
You said that Haiti needs a lot more money and it shouldn't be a problem. Well I agree with you but I think that most of the money that it receives in aid isn't being put to good use. Like you said, "Of the more than a million people displaced by the quake and living in fragile encampments, only a few thousand have been moved from the most flood-prone areas to new, sturdier shelter". I think the $800 million and the aid and materials that Haiti received, if put to good use, could have been more than sufficient for it reconstruction. But it careless government didn't move swiftly and decisively. After about 4 months, Haiti is still in a mess and this isn't because it doesn't have enough money or materials. But instead its because of corruption within the government itself.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/17/opinion/17sat1.html
I am referring to your editorial, "What Haiti Needs Right Now". I agree with you that Haiti doesn't need to worry about money or any kind of aid for its reconstruction plan. After Haiti's disastrous earthquake on January 12th, it has been trying to reconstruct as fast as possible. This would usually be extremely hard for one of the poorest countries in America, but not for Haiti since it has supporters and donors all over the world. About $800 million has already been committed to relief efforts by more than 150 countries and organizations.
You said that Haiti needs a lot more money and it shouldn't be a problem. Well I agree with you but I think that most of the money that it receives in aid isn't being put to good use. Like you said, "Of the more than a million people displaced by the quake and living in fragile encampments, only a few thousand have been moved from the most flood-prone areas to new, sturdier shelter". I think the $800 million and the aid and materials that Haiti received, if put to good use, could have been more than sufficient for it reconstruction. But it careless government didn't move swiftly and decisively. After about 4 months, Haiti is still in a mess and this isn't because it doesn't have enough money or materials. But instead its because of corruption within the government itself.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/17/opinion/17sat1.html
daily news editorial
Dear Daily News editor,
I agree with you that the "Curse of Our Times" is terrorism and that the United States is and always has been a major target for terrorists attacks. The 9-11 attacks, fort hood shooting, and attempted bombing at Times Square on Saturday are all examples of this. I also agree that the attempted bombing on May 1st, in one of the busiest streets in Manhattan, failed only because of a badly assembled bomb and the work of alert New Yorkers. It seems like you don't trust the government, whether state or federal, at all. But you said that "No police, not even the NYPD, can prevent acts of terror". I don't agree with this since I believe that our police is doing its best to stop terrorism, which is shown by their quick action on Saturday.
You blame all these attacks only on Islamists and Muslims, and that's not correct. Yes, radical Muslims are a part of many terrorist attacks. But its necessary to understand that not all Muslims are terrorists and that not all terrorists are Muslims. For example the attempted bombing in Manhattan on Saturday was done by an American Muslim and not just any crazy Muslim suicide bomber. Another example is the bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma in 1995, done by Timothy McVeigh, an (white) American. My point is that terrorist are not just Muslims or Islamists. They could simply be people that dislike the government or want some kind of revenge.
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2010/05/03/2010-05-03_the_curse_of_our_times.html
I agree with you that the "Curse of Our Times" is terrorism and that the United States is and always has been a major target for terrorists attacks. The 9-11 attacks, fort hood shooting, and attempted bombing at Times Square on Saturday are all examples of this. I also agree that the attempted bombing on May 1st, in one of the busiest streets in Manhattan, failed only because of a badly assembled bomb and the work of alert New Yorkers. It seems like you don't trust the government, whether state or federal, at all. But you said that "No police, not even the NYPD, can prevent acts of terror". I don't agree with this since I believe that our police is doing its best to stop terrorism, which is shown by their quick action on Saturday.
You blame all these attacks only on Islamists and Muslims, and that's not correct. Yes, radical Muslims are a part of many terrorist attacks. But its necessary to understand that not all Muslims are terrorists and that not all terrorists are Muslims. For example the attempted bombing in Manhattan on Saturday was done by an American Muslim and not just any crazy Muslim suicide bomber. Another example is the bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma in 1995, done by Timothy McVeigh, an (white) American. My point is that terrorist are not just Muslims or Islamists. They could simply be people that dislike the government or want some kind of revenge.
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2010/05/03/2010-05-03_the_curse_of_our_times.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)