freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose

I cannot help feeling there's something appallingly wrong. Here are extracts from a story that's been posted tonight by the Beeb:

Hamas backers jailed in Texas

Two founder members of what was once the biggest Muslim charity in the US have each been jailed for 65 years.

Shukri Abu Baker, 50, and Ghassan Elashi, 55, were convicted of channelling funds to the Palestinian militant group, Hamas.Three other members of the Holy Land Foundation were jailed for between 15 and 20 years by a Dallas court. [. . . ]

Hamas was designated a terrorist organisation by the US government 14 years ago, making it illegal to give the group money or other support.

The defendants said they were only interested in helping the needy.

Their supporters said no money had been used to fund violence, and the case was a by-product of what it called the anti-Islamic sentiment following the 11 September attacks of 2001.

Shukri Abu Baker told the judge in Dallas on Wednesday: "I did it because I cared, not at the behest of Hamas." [. . .]

The indictment against the group said it sponsored Palestinian orphans and families in the West Bank and Gaza whose relatives had died or been imprisoned as a result of Hamas attacks on Israel.

I am no fan of Hamas. I'm a great fan, though, of freedom. Also, I very much approve of charities that help war orphans. In addition, I have these old-fashioned notions that children should not be punished for the crimes of their parents, and that human life should be preserved.

As far as can be established, Shukri Abu Baker, 50, and Ghassan Elash have been sentenced to what might as well be death for the crime of trying to help widows and children.

Am I the only one to see the shadow of Stalin here?

Who next? The Red Cross? Medecins Sans Frontieres? Both organizations offer humanitarian help regardless of the political or religious affiliation of the recipient. Are their leaders going to be prosecuted in Texas?

I've been loving this stuff

If you're not such a milquetoste as to be frightened by the prospect of a cross between Bach and Afro-Cuban jazz, here's something you might want to listen to: me, I've been listening to the three tracks on offer all day long, and am planning to buy the CD next time I'm near a record store.

reverse racism: a hazarded guess

Apparently Rush Limbaugh today accused Barack Obama of practising "reverse racism" -- of being "the greatest living practitioner of reverse racism", if I recall the wording aright -- and ever since I read this I've been trying to work out what the term means.

Racism is discriminating against other people on the basis of what you believe to be their racial difference from you. This is, of course, a completely irrational philosophy.

"Reverse racism" thus presumably means that you don't discriminate against other people based on your perception of their racial difference from yourself.

Using this definition, it seems to me that Obama is indeed guilty of "reverse racism": his appointments seem blithely unaware of racial/ethnic/religious differences . . . which is exactly what any President's appointments are supposed to be.

So why is Rush Limbaugh so incensed? And what does he mean when he uses the term "reverse racism"?

As far as I can work out, Limbaugh is mad at Obama because the latter's cabinet doesn't include any fat, drug-addicted, racist, draft-dodging, airwaves-hogging, homophobic, ignorant, hate-mongering, hypocritical billionaire cunts.

Since that's the only demographic that Obama's appointments seem to exclude, I think I may be approaching an understanding of the term's definition.