Open letter to Lowe's CEO, Robert A. Niblock

Lowe's Corporate Headquarters

Robert A. Niblock, CEO

1000 Lowes Blvd.

Mooresville, NC 28117

Dear Mr. Niblock,

It is with great disappointment that I write to you today. After learning of your hurtful decision to pull advertising from the TLC series “All-American Muslim”, I immediately reconsidered the nature of our business relationship and concluded that your actions have done nothing but damage a sincere and earnest effort on TLC's part to help humanize and integrate Muslim Americans into this society. Sadly, you have succumbed to the pressure of the Florida Family Association, a radical group who have made clear their racist agenda against people such as myself.

I recently found the following statement on your website:

“Lowe's is committed to treating each customer, employee, community, investor and vendor with respect and dignity.”

By dignifying the FFA's request with not just action but also written acknowledgment, in what way do you feel you are fulfilling your commitment to treat the American Muslim community with respect and dignity?

Your support for their disgusting cause is inexcusable and immoral. Perhaps your decision was based on fear that a group of racists would boycott your company, in which case you have shamefully chosen profit over principle. Or perhaps you actually believe their hateful propaganda, in which case you have sadly chosen a much darker path.

Either way, my wife and I have canceled our recent order for a new kitchen appliance. You have lost our business, and worse, our respect.

Never stop improving,

Munir Faridi

An open response to "Dear Jon Stewart (Regards, Arsalan Shaikh)"

Comparing Jon Stewart to “pig-ignorant morons on Fox” is an extreme and unfounded statement. Even worse than this type of adolescent name-calling is labeling someone a “bigot” without any real proof or analysis.

Other than pointing out one statement Stewart made regarding the amount of aid the U.S. has given to Pakistan, the author makes no other specific references to either of the shows to support his assertion that Stewart appeared bigoted. So I’m left with only one plausible conclusion. Jon Stewart is a bigot because he made fun of the Pakistani government on May 3 and May 19, 2011. If anyone actually believes this, it’s probably because these are the only two episodes of The Daily Show they’ve ever seen. In reality, Jon Stewart is much worse than that. He’s also an unpatriotic American for his numerous jabs at our politicians, a racist for his incessant “urban” jokes about the former head of the Republican National Committee, a self-hating Jew for his criticism of Israeli settlements, and a sinophobe for his relentless quips against Chinese manufacturers. So please, don’t flatter Pakistan. Jon Stewart demonstrates his so-called intolerance toward the whole world.

Mr. Stewart is human and I don’t always agree with everything he says, but making a comparison between one of the most moderate voices in America to an obvious right-wing, agenda-driven news organization is hardly objective. It is instead fueled by the illogic of emotions tied to blind nationalism. The Daily Show is not a news show. It’s a comedy show based on the absurdities and contradictions of any person, idea, or institution, be it government or otherwise, of any nation (most often the United States itself), that makes the mainstream news. In this case, the absurdity of Osama bin Laden’s close proximity to a major Pakistani military base was the focus of Mr. Stewart’s rant. Ironically, comparing Jon Stewart to “pig-ignorant morons” on the Fox News Network because the author disagrees with him is akin to the Fox News Network comparing various politicians to “Nazis” because they disagree with how they run the government. I religiously watch The Daily Show as well as the programming on Fox (both quite hilarious even if one doesn’t intend to be) and I’m just not convinced of any semblance between the two. In fact, Jon Stewart, unlike Fox, has on many occasions criticized the warmongering of the U.S. government. Countless times has he acknowledged and condemned the horrific killing of innocent civilians abroad as a result of our wars. Stewart even suggested that the American public be shown images of the civilian dead in order for us to make real decisions about war. So no, Jon does not want to bomb Pakistan “back to the Stone Age”. Unfortunately, I can’t say the same for some U.S. officials.

Another confusing contradiction is when the author concedes to the possibility of “complicity at some level” on the part of the Pakistani government – the exact same point made by Stewart in both of those episodes – then continues to criticize and bash the Pakistani government and military. If “Osamagate is shockingly embarrassing for our criminally inept Government and the military/intelligence agencies that we spend so much money on at the expense of providing health and education to our people”, why take offense to Stewart’s jokes about this incident? If anything, the author and Mr. Stewart share in common that the Pakistani government is disloyal to them both. The important difference is that this disloyalty has a far more profound and significant impact on the people of Pakistan - the true victims of this crime. While I’ll gladly share in the frustrations the author feels toward the illegitimacy of U.S. operations in Pakistan, Afghanistan, or anywhere else we’ve deployed troops in the name of this so-called “War on Terror”, as well as the general hypocrisy of U.S. foreign policy, his complaints and accusations against Jon Stewart are deeply misguided and sometimes irrelevant.

What I found flat out ridiculous was the assertion that somehow Mr. Stewart suggested “by implication [the Pakistani people] want nothing more than the destruction of the USA”. Uhh…. What? How, by the Graces of God, could anyone possibly infer such an outrageous statement from anything that Jon said on either of those nights or any other night for that matter? Considering the length of this article one might expect at the very least a few specific quotes to back up such a claim. But instead the reader is punished by a number of irrelevant tangents and random facts. And then to go on and accuse Stewart (and by implication the American people?) for owing Pakistan money and for failing to capture terrorists completely discredits the validity of any point the author tries to make. This is pure hypocrisy. The number of Americans who are against U.S. military actions abroad is significant. Why implicate 300 million Americans in these war crimes? It was crystal clear that Stewart’s comments on Pakistan were aimed at the government, the military, and the ISI. I cannot, however, say the same of the author’s comments on Jon Stewart and America.

Aside from compromising the journalistic integrity of this article by not citing a quote from the movie A Few Good Men, the reference itself is laughable. If I’m to understand this correctly and it “sums up” what the author feels as a Pakistani regarding their “role in protecting the World” (an assertion in itself that is puzzling) then the author himself is a military man who is willingly fighting a war to protect American civilians and is criticizing Jon Stewart for not doing the same. Is this a joke? Now, I won’t even dare assume or question the author’s military service, but let’s make one thing clear here: the Pakistani military isn’t even providing the blanket of freedom for its own people. In the face of unfavorable odds, unarmed Arabs across the Middle East rose up against oppressive regimes, some of which were backed by the mighty U.S. What are Pakistanis doing about their government besides blaming the greedy interests of the West in between watching re-runs of Sex and the City?

These terrorists are blowing up your buildings and murdering your innocents, so why not demand some answers from government officials regarding their involvement with bin Laden? How about staging protests or submitting a scathing opinion to local and national newspapers criticizing your government’s ineptitude? In the end, the article was void of any thought-provoking analysis and the profanity was unnecessary. Anything else would have been far more constructive than writing an impassioned letter wrongfully attacking an American comedian.

Post-Osama bin Laden, U.S.-Pakistan Relationship Status? – “It’s Complicated”

For many, there has never been a better time to question our relationship with Pakistan than now. The U.S. operation that led to the death of Osama bin Laden has sparked a number of questions surrounding Pakistan’s role in the operation, their knowledge of bin Laden’s whereabouts, and their overall loyalty and commitment to the so-called war on terror.

Quite simply, the ISI (Pakistan’s intelligence agency) played an Oscar-worthy Inspector Clouseau for the past several years while sharing a zip code with this nefarious neighbor. The bottom line is that bin Laden lived in one of the most protected areas in all of Pakistan. From whom did he need protection?

The Pakistani government made out like bandits here. During the past decade, Islamabad received billions in military and humanitarian aid from the U.S. government in return for their “cooperation” as the United States searched or bombed every rock in the pursuit of bin Laden. What motive would Pakistan have to hand over this harried treasure?

Osama bin Laden’s proximity to the Pakistan Military Academy in Abbottabad sounds eerily similar to the fortified bullion residing next to Fort Knox. The notion that the ISI hadn’t a clue is both risible and ludicrous. Even the Pakistani authorities are not that incompetent, as much as they’d like you to believe otherwise. As they cashed in their chips, Pakistan also managed to quell possible uprisings from the restless natives who have grown increasingly frustrated with the government over U.S. drone attacks.

But where’s the big surprise in all of this? Why are pundits and out-of-the-loop congressmen throwing such a hissy fit over Pakistan’s loyalties?

As long as we play the sugar-daddy, our bilateral partnership with Pakistan isn’t going anywhere, except maybe to the neighbor’s house to cheat on us while we look the other way. There’s no need for the Pakistani government to weasel its way out of this one any more than there was for their continued involvement in training the Taliban. Even the White House has downplayed any notion of wrongdoing on the Pakistanis’ part by giving them diluted credit where credit is undue. We can’t afford to implicate Pakistani leadership as an accomplice to bin Laden or champion them as deeply committed to U.S. military operations.

Perhaps the more heinous crime here is not the state of Pakistan’s loyalty to us, but rather its loyalty to its own people. The dissemination of lies and outright deceit over this debacle is characteristic of a corrupt government of this magnitude.

At the same time, the people of Pakistan need to stop blaming all of their problems on the United States and India, and take example from the wave of revolutions sweeping the Arab world. The “Pakistan can do no wrong” mentality is sadly misguided and delusional. This fractured state barely shows any loyalty to its own civilians. Why should we expect any different?

Pakistan is still of great value to the United States, at least for the time being. Osama bin Laden’s death hardly means an end to anything. Al-Qaeda continues to run rampant in the region, and there are plenty of natural resources in them thar Afghani hills. So while our country continues to whine and moan about Pakistan, it will be business as usual between the two nations: You keep on prostituting yourself when you could be leading a better life, and we’ll continue to pay you with our children’s college funds.