#1
The gist of this was that an American minister who was in charge of some interfaith dialogue with Islam was Amazed that the Afghan constitution would allow death to apostates.
Robert Spencer was amazed at the minister's ignorance.
I'm not amazed at all. The overwhelming majority of clergy get their info on Islam from personal contact or from dumbed down warm and fuzzy essays and the like. Thus, they are vulnerable to misinformation.
#2
The Bishop of Rochester, the Right Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, who leads the Church of Englands dialogue with Islam, told The Times: Im amazed that the constitution that has been agreed in post-Taleban Afghanistan under the very eyes of the international community should allow this kind of thing to take place for a person to be arrested for having been converted 14 years ago and to be threatened with execution simply for his beliefs."
He is an English bishop, even though some American Episcopalian clergy are also that willfully naive.
Posted by: ed ||
03/22/2006 12:01 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Not Spencer, but the windbag Hugh that posts on his site.
(Not saying the guy's wrong or a bad guy, just that he routinely takes 100 words when 5 would do.)
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
03/22/2006 12:08 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Im amazed that the constitution . . .has been agreed in post-Taleban Afghanistan under the very eyes of the international community
hey. these laws exist throughout the islamic world. does he expect that afghanistan would be different?
or maybe he isn't aware of how bereft of civilized notions is the islamic world?
Scotsman
BRIAN FERGUSON
'Anti-Islam' sex tourism book takes to the stage at Festival
A CONTROVERSIAL novel about sex tourism in Thailand which landed its author in court accused of stirring hatred against Muslims is to be turned into a new play for the Edinburgh International Festival. Only giving the Abdullahs a little bite of their 72 virgins.
Catalan director Calixto Bieito, who is renowned for his X-rated productions, will work with novelist Michel Houellebecq to adapt his explosive book "Platform" for the stage.
The production is being billed as one of the highlights of this summer's Festival.
The novel caused uproar when it was published in 2001 and infuriated Muslim fundamentalists.
Platform tells the story of a French tourist who sets up a Thai travel agency specialising in sex tourism. In the book, the business meets the wrath of Islamic fundamentalists, who murder his girlfriend and more than 100 others in a terrorist attack on a leisure centre. Sex tourists v Jihadis. Sounds like Tarantino. "Reservoir Camels."
The book features embittered diatribes against Muslims from the bereaved businessman character. If Hamlet gets a soliloquay, why not Jacques Pervert?
The author, now said to live as a virtual recluse in Ireland, went on to be sued, unsuccessfully, in the French courts for inciting racial hatred. He was quoted in an interview at the time as describing Islam as "the most stupid of religions". Muslims are smart enough to take advantage of our stupidity. Most of France's current leaders will eventually live as virtual recluses in Ireland. Actually, De Gaulle spent his last days there.
Sir Brian McMaster today hailed director Bieito - who has been dubbed the "the Spanish Quentin Tarantino" after featuring necrophilia and torture in previous Edinburgh shows including Hamlet, Il Trovatore and Celestina - and described "Platform" as a masterpiece...
Posted by: Listen to Dogs ||
03/22/2006 16:33 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
Three years of conflict in Iraq has corroded public trust in every aspect of his premiership, both domestic and foreign
If you want to understand the current plight of Tony Blair, there was a brief but revealing glimpse of it on BBC News 24 yesterday afternoon. The channel carried live a thoughtful, cogent speech by the prime minister on foreign policy, the first of a trilogy. The moment the PM finished, the presenter invited a correspondent to offer a few words of analysis - before returning to the big story of the day: the ongoing row over loans-for-peerages. Blair's face was gone, replaced by Tory benefactor Stuart Wheeler, denouncing the corruption of the Blair regime.
There it was, Blair's problem in a televisual nutshell: he can get no message across, can set no grand vision, drive through no important policy, because his voice is drowned out by political noise like the article you are now reading. This week's noise was Labour sleaze. Last week it was Labour's split on education reform. The week before that it was more alleged Labour sleaze, centred on the financial arrangements of Tessa Jowell. These are the passing squalls, but they are not the source of the storm. That lies elsewhere.
To find it, one has to look hard at that speech yesterday. Ambitious to lay out a coherent Blair doctrine of foreign policy, the prime minister began by restating his belief in liberal interventionism - the creed that democratic countries can no longer stand by while dictators commit hideous crimes against their own peoples.
When he first developed the idea, in the so-called Chicago speech of 1999, at the height of the Kosovo crisis, he won many admirers. Those who, like me, backed the principle of intervention believed Blair was articulating a new approach to international affairs, one that would no longer see the principle of state sovereignty trump all other moral considerations. That same year, Augusto Pinochet had failed in his attempt to hide behind the legal notion of "sovereign immunity" rather than be answerable for his crimes in Chile. The Blair doctrine suggested a new dispensation, one that would no longer let horror go unpunished, one that would not tolerate a second Rwanda.
Such talk sounds quaint now or, worse, deluded. The explanation is simple enough. The Iraq adventure poisoned the well for interventionism, perhaps for generations to come. Not because it made a case on humanitarian grounds, but because it invented a threat that was not there. At the turn of the decade many progressives were ready to believe in a new ethical, rather than realpolitik, motivation in foreign policy. But the Iraq war made a mockery of all that. From now on, any government urging military action for moral purpose will face hoots of derision and howls of scepticism. You said that about Iraq, the voters will say, and we won't be fooled again.
All of which lent Blair's speech a rather forlorn feel. As if in valedictory mode, the PM conceded those places where there had been no intervention, even though he wished there had. He had done nothing for Burma, nothing for the slave nation of North Korea, nothing for Zimbabwe. And, above all, though he referred to it only indirectly, nothing for Darfur. The lesson of Rwanda had gone utterly unheeded.
There was no hint of action for these places; Blair tacitly admitted that there is no chance of that. Partly because he is approaching the end of his tenure, but also because, after Iraq, the idea of marshalling an international consensus for armed action anywhere seems almost preposterous. His roll call of countries was a wish list, as remote from reality as a beauty queen's plea for world peace.
The same was true of his remarks on what he called "a clash about civilisation". Blair urged a firm stance not just against terrorist methods, but against the ideology of Bin Ladenist Islamism itself. We have to tell them, he said, that their "attitude to America is absurd, their concept of governance pre-feudal, their positions on women and other faiths reactionary and regressive". Yes, some may feel frightened of straying into this terrain, for fear of being branded a critic of Islam itself allan forbid!, but nevertheless a stand had to be taken against this particular "warped" strain of Islamism - chiefly by supporting those Muslims who are already fighting this battle themselves.
All of that made great sense and suggests that Blair has shifted his position. Once he tiptoed around the point; now he is willing to urge Muslims not to go into denial, but "to face up to the strain of extremism within [their] religion".
Yet this message too was drowned out. Of course, Blair is right that Bin Ladenist ideology is worldwide and lethal, and must be defeated. The trouble is, everyone knows not only that the Iraq war was unrelated to that titanic struggle, since Saddam had no link with al-Qaida, but that it has made it so much worse. Yesterday Blair urged us to ignore that fact, to realise that, whatever our earlier disagreements, we have to close ranks in wanting democracy to triumph over murderous sectarianism in Baghdad today. The trouble is, he is the one person who cannot make this case. Why should we follow his banner in the war against Islamist reaction, when it was he who led us blindly into such a calamity?
The crude, harsh truth is that no one can take what Blair says on foreign policy seriously, because he is responsible for the greatest foreign-policy disaster in half a century of British history. No matter that he emerged as a major world leader during the Kosovo war, or that he won international admiration after the Good Friday agreement. Now, because of that one fateful decision, his credibility is shot.
And it is not just in international affairs that Blair is overwhelmed by Iraq. Take the current sleaze affair. A useful law of scandal is that charges only bite when they confirm a pre-existing suspicion. In the 1990s Britons believed the Major government was decayed; the Hamilton and Aitken revelations duly validated that belief. When the Bernie Ecclestone affair broke in 1997, voters didn't see Blair or New Labour as financially corrupt (even though the charge then, of cash-for-policy, was much graver than anything revealed now). Today's scandal bites because it plays into something Britons do now believe about their government: that it is not honest and cannot be trusted.
And the explanation for that, once again, is Iraq. Polls show that Blair was broadly trusted before the invasion. But he told the nation that Saddam had weapons of destruction when he didn't, and Blair has never been trusted since. In this sense, removing Blair over a few undisclosed loans would be like jailing Al Capone for tax evasion: he will be punished for a small offence because the system couldn't get him for the much larger one.
Can he overcome this? Can Blair somehow persuade us, as he tried again yesterday, to draw a line under the three-year conflict that corrodes every aspect of his premiership, preventing him leading on matters domestic and foreign? I don't see how. It's understandable that he wants to recover his reputation and quit as a winner. He's like a gambler at the roulette wheel, sinking further and further into debt, but still praying for one more lucky spin that will restore his fortune. Maybe he'll enjoy a small win one of these days. But it can't last. His luck has run out. And he cannot blame fate or chance or anyone but himself - and his decision to fight the war that destroyed him.
You can find Blair's speech here. Reading it will help alleviate the nausea you may feel after reading the partisan polemic above.
#1
The trouble is, everyone knows not only that the Iraq war was unrelated to that titanic struggle, since Saddam had no link with al-Qaida, but that it has made it so much worse.
Don't these people ever wonder if their grandchildren will get access to their inaccurate writing and be embarrassed?
#1
You have to wonder when Carter stopped just being a weasel and actually began relishing eating his own feces. That bottom right picture, where he's with Arafat, you can see the last vestiges of queasiness. Almost makes him human, again. But in the others, he's enthusiastically chomping away.
Maybe he's a shining example of the depths people will go to for attention since, unlike Michael Moore for example, he isn't making really big bucks out of becoming a total laughingstock and traitor to America.
He's certainly not funny. I support this effort as it makes more sense than not doing it by a wide margin.
So they've cancelled the Dubai Ports World deal. Feel better now? Safer? I don't.
Because the problem is not just Dubai Ports World. It isn't even the recent reports that indicate the National Guard has been stretched too thin by the loss of both manpower and equipment to Iraq, or the upcoming release of two "Virginia Jihad" members, or the enrolment at Yale University of a former Taliban spokesman. It isn't the recent relaxation of security rules on airplanes (knives, scissors and knitting needles allowed on board and fewer bag searches at airports), and the continuing lack of security measures at major train stations throughout the country. It's not even the fact that Dubai pulled out of the deal only when faced with an in-depth investigation and at the request of the President (from whom, one can be certain, alternative promises were made in exchange).
This is something much, much bigger.
In February, I attended a conference in the Netherlands featuring experts on the concepts of dhimmitude, a word based on the Arabic word "dhimmi," or "protected," and Eurabia, a word created by scholar Bat Ye'or to describe a Euro-Arab solidarity that is leading gradually (though ever faster) to the Islamization of our European friends and allies.
In essence, Europeans, says Ye'or, have acquiesced to the powers and demands of the Arab world, cooperating and collaborating in areas of foreign policy, economy, and culture, in return for which Europe will be in principle safe from the violent conquest by Islam.
If this sounds like crazy conspiracy theory, in fact, it isn't really all that different from the politics we're used to in America. Countries that behave according to Western, Euro-American standards can count on Euro-American investment and military support; those who do not can expect repercussions. The difference here is simply one of a marriage between church and state: for Islamic nations, they are one and the same. Follow their religion, submit to their socio-economic demands, and their governments will not persecute or attack.
Consider, too, the central premise of Bat Ye'or's argument: that according to the principles of jihad, non-Muslims must be brought to convert preferably through peaceable means, but if necessary, through violence.
In an interview with John W. Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute, the Egyptian born Bat Ye'or explains:
"According to the jihadic doctrine, the world is divided into two parts: Muslims and Infidels, the latter living in the dar al-harb, the land of war, because their land must be Islamized by peaceful means, or by war if they resist. Before attacking the Infidels, Muslims must first call them to convert; if they refuse, they are asked to pay a ransom; if they refuse again, Muslims have the duty to wage war on them. Truce is accepted on condition that the Infidels pay a regular ransom and put no obstacle to the spread of Islam in their own countries. There are other conditions also, like sending soldiers to fight for Islamic interests. A truce should not last more than 10 years, and it is allowed only when the Muslim ruler is weak. Otherwise, war against the Infidels is mandatory."
The words "put no obstacle to the spread of Islam in their countries" explain, for instance, the establishment of Saudi-run mosques throughout Europe (the largest of which is based in Rotterdam home to Europe's major port) and of Saudi-owned schools and bookstores where anti-Western texts are taught and sold, where one finds books like The Muslim Way, a bestseller in the Dutch Muslim community that advises its readers that it is often necessary to beat women, that women are obliged to submit to their husbands' sexual desires on demand, and that homosexuals should be burned, stoned, or thrown from the highest available building, head first.
In exchange for this openness, Europe receives Arab oil, Arab investment, and a "truce" of sorts by which, as Muslims become the majority in many countries (which some believe could take place within decades), Jews and Christians will be safe to practice their religions, just as they were permitted to do as dhimmis in the 7th century, when, writes Bat Ye'or, "the infidel population had to recognize Islamic ownership on their land, submit to Islamic (i.e. Sharia) law, and accept payment of the poll tax. In return they were granted the effective protection of Islamic law, which gave them security, limited religious rights, and self administration in religious and civil law." On her web site (dhimmitude.org) she further notes, "Peace and security for non-Muslims are recognized only after their submission. Protection status is provided through the Islamization of conquered lands."
So what has this to do with American security today?
Just this: Influence and investment in the USA by Muslim nations particularly Saudi Arabia and the UAE not only continues, but is escalating, invading our institutions with the $20 million grant to Harvard University by Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal for the establishment of an Islamic Studies program (which can surely be expected to teach the kinds of things that similarly-sponsored schools teach in Europe); with the purchase last fall by Dubai's crown prince Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum of 230 Park Avenue, the building above New York's Grand Central Station; with the takeover by another Dubai firm, Dubai Holdings, of the Doncasters Group, a UK-based manufacturer of parts for military aircraft, tanks, and petrochemical markets with plants throughout the US and Europe.
Doncasters' now Dubai Holding's biggest clients? Boeing, Honeywell, Siemens, and General Electric.
(It is perhaps worth noting that, as with the Dubai Ports World transactions, many of those companies agreeing to be purchased are not only European, but that of our closest European ally: Great Britain. And to quote a piece in Al Bayan, a government run UAE newspaper as cited by the Anti-Defamation League: "...But who planted the biggest and the most dangerous virus in the region? Isn't it Britain and Europe who planted the Israeli virus? Isn't America protecting and injecting this virus in every aspect of life so it can penetrate and become monstrous?").
Yet when questioned on these transactions, their defenders are quick to pull the "racism" card, arguing that we don't want to anger our "friends" in the United Arab Emirates, who have, they argue, supported and assisted some of America's anti-terror efforts.
(That they have supported and assisted some of political Islam's most vicious terrorists in their own effort is, apparently, not the point.)
In other words, the deal is struck: they'll be nice to us as long as we let them take over our ports, our real estate, our train stations (the ones lacking security systems), our institutions. If we refuse them, they may so the argument goes get angry, pack up their toys and go home, and then come back to bomb us in the morning.
These, we call our friends.
This, I call succumbing to terror.
This, I call dhimmitude.
Ye'or defines the term, in fact, in exactly this way, noting in her interview with Whitehead that the concept "represents a behavior dictated by fear (terrorism), pacifism when aggressed, rather than resistance, servility because of cowardice and vulnerability."
Isn't that what this is?
THE SELLING OF THE MILITARY
If you haven't heard of Dubai Holdings, the company that just purchased Doncasters while you weren't looking, you might want to find out more. They also have a $1 billion share of Daimler/Chrysler, makers of such commonly used US and European military equipment as ground transport vehicles and of such vital military weapons as missiles.
(And of course, if it is true that, as some have suggested, the UAE maintains friendly relations with the USA in part because of its need to purchase our arms, well, they seem to be doing away with that necessity quite handily.)
Moreover, Doncasters now Dubai Holding maintains close connections with General Electric the company that not only produces turbine engines for Boeing (among others) but, as it announces proudly on its web site, "Whether you're with a federal, state or local government agency, GE offers innovative technologies to help make your world safer. GE can integrate the latest advancements with your existing equipment and IT systems so you can increase security at embassies, borders, military installations, water treatment plants and other critical public infrastructure. Plus these integrated systems capture valuable data you can use to improve procedures, investigate events and prevent others from happening at all."
In the face of all this, the cancellation of the Dubai Ports World deal (which now seems possibly not to have been cancelled after all) doesn't seem to me to mean that much.
Okay, I know that some people do not see this as a threat. They argue that the UAE has been an ally to the US. They maintain that in a globalized economy, international exchanges of businesses are not only likely but desirable, that there should be no difference between selling a company to the UK and selling the same business to the Arab world even to countries which have taken a pronounced, militant stance against Israel, whose anti-Semitic leanings and support of Hamas and of the Taliban are well-documented, countries that have served as financial centers for terrorists, countries that have, in fact, harbored the very terrorists who killed thousands on our own shores.
Even, it seems, in the face of history.
(Whether the connections between some of these companies and friends, members, and family of the Bush Administration are relevant here is another question; stay tuned for Part Two of this investigation.)
Some defense contractors have told me global war by Islamic extremists is becoming a business. Tactics and procedures are being tested in Sri Lanka, bombs are tested in Indonesia, and suddenly they turn up in Afghanistan and Iraq. And the UAE, they say, knows that military defense is a growth business in the United States these days.
How do they know? Why do they know?
Speaking not of the UAE, but of their Saudi neighbors, Ibn Warraq, the esteemed author of Leaving Islam and Why I Am Not A Muslim pointed out at the Hague conference, "In August, 2002, the Rand Corporation published a report that described Saudi Arabia as ' the kernel of evil, the prime mover, the most dangerous opponent."
The report went on explain that "Saudi Arabia supports our enemies and attacks our allies. The Saudis are active at every level of the terror chain, from planners to financiers, from cadre to foot-soldier, from ideologist to cheerleader'. And yet little seems to have changed in the West's behavior towards a regime that has financed terrorism, funnelled millions into madrassas that preach more anti-Western hatred, has corrupted institutions of higher education like Harvard and Georgetown University, has bought the favours of Western politicians and seeks to destroy Western civilisation at every turn. We know the reason: oil. But until we address the question of Saudi Arabia and its influence on life in the West we shall have no progress, no rest."
Is the UAE really all that different? Is that a chance we want to take with our military equipment, our clean water systems, our embassies, our railways, our ports?
Author and scholar Robert Spencer may make you wonder. Asked to define dhimmitude in his own words, he replied in an e-mail: It is the status that Islamic law, the Sharia, mandates for non-Muslims, primarily Jews and Christians. Dhimmis, "protected people," are free to practice their religion in a Sharia regime, but are made subject to a number of humiliating regulations designed to enforce the Koran's command that they "feel themselves subdued."(Sura 9:29). This denial of equality of rights and dignity remains part of the Sharia, and, as such, are part of the law that global jihadists are laboring to impose everywhere, ultimately on the entire human race."
Yes. I am afraid.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
03/22/2006 14:53 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
When the "better red than dead" mentality arose in the 'fifties, they were immediately challenged by academics who challenged surrenderism. Our academics lack that moral strength.
#2
Ok, some good points in general, but some major problems which cause question to the whole:
They also have a $1 billion share of Daimler/Chrysler, makers of such commonly used US and European military equipment as ground transport vehicles and of such vital military weapons as missiles.
Well, ground support equipment is almost commodity, same as missiles. You see tow bars everyday at the airport, and missiles by nature are disposable.
Also, $1B is not that much in the auto industry, let alone aerospace. These are very poor examples.
Some defense contractors have told me global war by Islamic extremists is becoming a business.
Not sure who this would be, but most real defense contractors wouldn't touch these with a ten foot pole ... not enough initial money, and not enough sustaining. Sorry, but, this is dead wrong.
Raising some good points here, but, the examples really drop the ball.
#3
"Global war by Radical extremists is becoming a business" - no surprise here, as its called getting your enemies, real or potential, to defeat or destroy themselves. No different wid the Commies, now known as Conservative
"Fascists"/Socialists. at least in America = Amerikka, vv Lenin's famed "hangman" quote.
Long, needs p. 49; see link for footnotes.
by David Kennedy Houck
First in Europe and now in the United States, Muslim groups have petitioned to establish enclaves in which they can uphold and enforce greater compliance to Islamic law. While the U.S. Constitution enshrines the right to religious freedom and the prohibition against a state religion, when it comes to the rights of religious enclaves to impose communal rules, the dividing line is more nebulous. Can U.S. enclaves, homeowner associations, and other groups enforce Islamic law?
Such questions are no longer theoretical. While Muslim organizations first established enclaves in Europe,[1] the trend is now crossing the Atlantic. Some Islamist community leaders in the United States are challenging the principles of assimilation and equality once central to the civil rights movement, seeking instead to live according to a separate but equal philosophy. The Gwynnoaks Muslim Residential Development group, for example, has established an informal enclave in Baltimore because, according to John Yahya Cason, director of the Islamic Education and Community Development Initiative, a Baltimore-based Muslim advocacy group, "there was no community in the U.S. that showed the totality of the essential components of Muslim social, economic, and political structure."[2]
My underlying thesis in American Theocracy is that these are the three major perils of the United States in the early 21st century.
Socialism, secularism, and ... oh, that's not what you mean.
First, radical religion this encompasses everything from the Pat Robertson-Jerry Falwell types to the attacks on medicine and science and the Left Behind books with their End Times and Armageddon scenarios. Second, oil dependence oil was essential to 20th century U.S. hegemony, and its growing scarcity and cost could play havoc. And third, debt is becoming a national weakness indeed, the borrowing industry in the U.S. has grown so rapidly that finance has displaced manufacturing as the leading U.S. sector. Pat Robertson is overbearing and shallow, but Jerry Falwell and the Southern Baptists, etc contribute much to public debate on vital issues. Too bad that Red-State Republicans don't pay attention.
Financing has always been around. The Rothschilds did well. Modern financing has helped us to build a world our forefathers couldn't imagine.
After George W. Bush narrowly won a second term in 2004, ...
... having a won a majority of the vote, something no Democrat since LBJ has managed to do ...
... which meant four more years of Religious Right power, over-dependence on oil and over-involvement in the Middle East and the fattening of the debt albatross, I decided to shift my focus from the biases, failings and deceits of the Bush family, going back four generations, which had been my focus during 2004 in my book American Dynasty.
Now sitting on the remainder pile.
The new book would concentrate on the three perils to the U.S. all of which, however, were closely related to the re-orientation of the Republican party that occurred under the two Bushes. Here readers should keep in mind that from 1980 to 2004. Only one presidential election (1996) did not have a Bush on the ticket as the presidential or vice presidential nominee. Between 1988 and 2006, the two Bush presidents put a particular stamp on the GOPs regionalism, religious pandering and fealty to oil and finance. Northern urban conceit or epiphany?
Progressive conceit, you find it everywhere.
A second major element of the new book is to look at the three perils in the context of the weaknesses of the previous leading world economic powers. All of them, from Rome to Britain, resembled the Bush era U.S. in imperial cockiness. They thought they were unique, that God was on their side and that they had transcended history. Ultimately, too much crusading, strutting, borrowing, luxuriating and interest-group entrenchment helped do them in. Empires don't facilitate free elections for their subjects, while permitting freedom of expression. I would have imposed reparations on Iraq, and implemented disproportionate retaliation against post-occupation terror.
He also forgets how Rome was brought down: that era's progressives refused to fight to preserve the land, and hired mercenaries and barbarians to defend them. Disease took a major role (measles killed 1/5 of Romans in the 2nd Century AD). Continued war and strife with competing wanna-be emperors took its toll. It's like Mr. Phillips hasn't ever heard of, let alone read, Edward Gibbons.
The excesses of the Religious Right in the Bush years represent a particular danger.. Some 45% of U.S. Christians believe in the End Times and Armageddon, and Tim LaHayes lurid Left Behind series helped mobilize them and shape Washington awareness of their importance. Centrist religious leaders believe its a gross distortion of the Bible, but theres no doubt that a large percentage of the Bush electorate believes that war and chaos in the holy lands (including Iraq) heralds the Second Coming.
The Left Behind series is escapist entertainment. It's harmless, and you only have to read it to recognize that. Guess there's another book Mr. Phillips hasn't read.
Oil was also central. Dick Cheney was very mindful of the coming shortfall, and during 2001 his Energy Task Force poured over maps of the Iraqi oilfields. The big U.S. oil companies were also desperate to have them, and since 2001, the U.S. military has increasingly taken up oilfield, pipeline and sea route protection. But alas, botching Iraq botched U.S. oil relationships. Someone took a gullibility pill.
If only we had elected Al Gore, we'd no longer be dependent on oil.
The Republicans have profited from a weak opposition. Bluntly put, since the 1960s the Democrats have been the vehicle for the growth of secularism and irreligion among perhaps a third of the U.S. population.
It doesn't help the Democrats that, on the six major social issues in this country, their position is the minority position. There's a name for a political party that consistently takes minority positions: the minority party.
Strong churchgoers now vote Republican for president by roughly 3:1. As of 2005-2006, the new chance for the Democrats is to compete for the people in the middle in particular, merely occasional religious attendees and moderates who think that the liberals went too far in the 1960s and 1970s but that the Religious Right and the would-be theocrats are the danger now. That is certainly my anslysis, and it is developed at great length in American Theocracy. The Secular State was the product of the religious wars of 16th century Europe. It was accepted by competing faiths, in the interest of institutional barriers to domination by one religion.
Secular doesn't mean irreligious, which is what the progressives demand. Secular means that all parties have a role, and no cardinal, grand vizier, preacher-man or rebbe tells the rest of us what to do and how to think.
Electorally, Its useful to divide Bushs supporters in two. On one side, the economic conservatives and centrist traditional GOPers; on the other, the true-believing religious electorate. Hes lost many of the middle-roaders with his Iraq, Katrina and Schiavo bungling. However, as long as he has most of his religious voters, itll be hard to push him below 35-40% job approval in the national polls. Islamist aggression will force a harder line on counter-terror, in the last years of the Bush administration. Traditional Seculars, who form the political Center, will support global security initiatives that Democrats have already squelched.
There's at least six different factions within the Repubs, and Bush continues to do well with several of them. Iraq isn't a bungle to most Republicans, and most Repubs see Katrina as a general failure of all levels of government.
Fear is likely to remain a Bush tactic.
As opposed to Howard Dean and Co., who never, ever use fear as a tactic.
His people have tried to polarize voters into seeing a fight between good and evil, stoking fear and a sense of global chaos. The doomsday preachers are on the same side. Fear as "Bush tactic?" If anything, the President's perception of the evil of Islamism (for me: Islam, per se) is an indequate assessment of that vulgar ideology of murderous aggression and human enslavement.
Central to Bush administration policy, is the inclusion of Islamists - like Hamas - in "democratic" processes.
What we are seeing in the Middle East is Weimar type plebiscites on extremism and terrorism, which Mid East Muslims are embracing. Real Politick dictates that Reagan-security should trump sham Carter-liberty, as the cornerstone of US foreign policy.
The majority of Americans are not in their camp, but there is a large minority certainly 25%, probably not 40% that want more Bible and less science, abstinence rather than contraception, fewer drugs and more faith (faith-healing) and uphold confidence in fuel supplies and resources because God will provide.
This guy is good at his straw-men, isn't he? It's too bad he doesn't get out more; the kinds of people he slams are some of the nicest, most charitable people I've ever met.
Neither Al Gore in 2000 or John Kerry in 2004 was a strong Democratic nominee. Most of the time they had nothing important to say. Got that right.
That's one.
Thats why Im an independent now. The Republicans started losing me in the late 1980s, and lost me completely with George W. Bush. In this year 2006, theyre starting to show signs of change, but so far its much too little much too late. One of our Republican congressmen here in Connecticut, Chris Shays, complains flat out that the party of Lincoln has become the party of theocracy. Yes, the Republicans should be vulnerable in the 2006 Congressional elections. But so far the Democrats have been a lackluster and unimaginative opposition. Their capacities or lack of them should also be part of the 2006 debate.
They will be -- count on it.
Posted by: Listen to Dogs ||
03/22/2006 00:37 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
And third, debt is becoming a national weakness
All of them, from Rome to Britain, resembled the Bush era U.S. in imperial cockiness.
Nothing annoys me more than people who make historical comparisons and merely expose their ignorance of history. The British Empire went massively into debt to pay for the Napoleonic Wars. But once won, they enjoyed a century of unrivalled dominance and economic prosperity.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
03/22/2006 8:11 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Last time I checked, it was the dim-o-crat party that took the lead in limiting oil drilling (and coal mining, and nuclear power, and when they can, wind power(!)) in this country...
Posted by: Phil ||
03/22/2006 9:10 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Perhpas if he were no so busy with pejoratives like "Theocrat", and sliming with a broad brush anyone that hold religious bleiefs, he might realize that he is simply wrong.
This whole screed reeks of some sort of anti-Bush hatred; the author looking for a reason for his hatred, and is thus trying to attach himself to anything, and consequently is makign himself into an ass.
"Theocracy" is not a "peril" to the US. Not nearly as much as the militant secularist atheism that seeks eradicate religion and morality from public life. It has already destroyed the black community with it s"its ok to be a sngle parte, its ok to bear children out of wedlokc, there are no such thing as personal consequences to yourself or God for your actions".
THAT is the sort of thing that has nearly destroyed this nation, and indded, its the polar opposite of theism that the biggest trheat to this naiton: they seek to eratdicate the one thing they cannot stand against: religion in the marketplace of ideas. The ACLU and atheists like this writer are still fighting to get religion *excluded* from public life, and seem to be completely unaware of the consequencse.
Thank God that we do have the first admenment which provides for freedom OF religion, not FROM religion.
And I am thankful that we have a president who is appointing judges and justices that will adhere tightly to the constitution instead of fabricting things wholesale from outside of it.
And I'm thankful that idiots like Jeving Phillips are in the minority in this nation -and are breeding themselves out of existence.
#5
This whole screed reeks of some sort of anti-Bush hatred; the author looking for a reason for his hatred, and is thus trying to attach himself to anything, and consequently is makign himself into an ass.
Well, it is from TPMCafe.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
03/22/2006 9:44 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Well said. She's peddling another "ism" that seeks to divide and weaken the US from within. A hundred flavors of hatred with a common goal.
We became who we are because we were founded by people of good common sense, collective purpose, and who believed in individual Freedom created and protected by rule of law - including recourse.
I don't recall the Secularists being listed at Plymouth Rock or on the Jamestown rolls. They did not create America. They are simply yet another SIG. They are protected, equally, under our Constitution. Just like every other group, they deserve no quarter for attempting to impose themselves upon others. By rule of law, we should be earnestly working to remove them from any positions they have managed to acquire to advance their agenda.
She, and those of her ilk, who make the wild-eyed claim that the Constitution has been eroded by religion have not one shred of evidence to support it. None. It's pure dementia.
There is ample evidence, however, that those espousing Secularism have abused their offices and abused our institutions in their efforts to destroy what made American the home of Freedom for all.
There is also ample evidence that dementias converge.
#7
Secular doesn't mean irreligious... Exactly, it is the left that is irreligious. The right is less tolerant of Muslim integration of mosque and state. Sharia campaigns - in the guise of "Muslim Personal Law" - in South Africa, Canada, Australia, Netherlands, etc - were supported by the left and opposed by the right. Southern Baptists have a persistent demand: let us have real Secularism. And, I would argue, the SBs can deliver 5-7 million votes. So who champions Secularism?
#9
All of them, from Rome to Britain, resembled the Bush era U.S. in imperial cockiness. They thought they were unique, that God was on their side and that they had transcended history. Ultimately, too much crusading, strutting, borrowing, luxuriating and interest-group entrenchment helped do them in. Empires don't facilitate free elections for their subjects, while permitting freedom of expression.
Oh, puhleeese ... I stopped reading about here. All of you know my distaste for the overemphasis being placed on religiosity by the Oval Office. I point to the thundering silence regarding Abdul Rahman as a sterling example. However, I refuse to give the least creedence to this sort of hysterical twaddle.
The Left Behind series is escapist entertainment. It's harmless, and you only have to read it to recognize that.
I think you may (seriously) underestimate the number of people who take the Left Behind series seriously. Your own intelligence level well exceeds that of many other fundamentalist Christians who are reading this stuff. Few fundamentalist Christians I have ever known possess anything even remotely resembling the degree of worldview and political awareness that the average Rantburger maintains.
#11
It's obvious he's never so much as met any observant Catholics or evangelicals, and he probably crosses the street to avoid walking by churches, lest he contract "Christer cooties" from getting too close. He is right about the danger from "theocracy" in one sense: Marxism is a fantasy ideology, just like Islamism, and the fanatical Marxists want absolute power just as badly as the Islamists do.
Posted by: Mike ||
03/22/2006 12:54 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Wonder, too, if the carping about "debt" is going to eventually lead him into a full-bore rant about "fiat money" and "international Jewish bankers who control the world" and Carlisle Group and Skull & Bones and all that moonbat jazz.
Pssst, Kevin, . . . there's never been a better time to buy gold.
Posted by: Mike ||
03/22/2006 13:00 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Few fundamentalist Christians I have ever known possess anything even remotely resembling the degree of worldview and political awareness that the average Rantburger maintains.
You're right Zenster. Since (largely by choice) about 99%+ of the population lacks the political awareness of a Rantburger, that also means that your average athiest, truck driver, Hindu, and convenience store clerk also lack our political awareness. It's hardly a mark of distinction.
#16
what a bunch of blah, blah, blah from just another loser who blindly adheres to his anti-American religion far more faithfully Christians do.
Some things are so obvious and one is that Muslim extremism, that brought down the WTC and has been responsible for untold terror worldwide. Yet this guy is still worried that Jerry Falwell might think that the blue smurf is gay. What a stupid putz.
#17
Yet this guy is still worried that Jerry Falwell might think that the blue smurf is gay.
All smurfs are blue. And subject to bombing from the UN.
Falwell was griping over one of the Teletubbies. They're not gay -- just really freaking creepy.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
03/22/2006 21:35 Comments ||
Top||
#18
Kevin Phillips is the left-wing "Republican" who's been predicting a Democratic surge for several decades now. He did it all through the Reagan, Bush and Clinton years. I guess one of these days, he'll eventually be right. The guy may fancy himself as once having been a Republican, but he was about at home in the GOP as Zell Miller was in the Democratic Party. The only reason this guy hasn't registered as a Democrat is because it would shred any tattered remnants of his pretense to impartiality when pronouncing on the doom of the GOP - any day now.
#19
Zenster: I point to the thundering silence regarding Abdul Rahman as a sterling example.
I can't get too worked up about it. Defense of minorities is a fine thing, but the reality is that we have a friendly government in Afghanistan today. Another point is that perhaps 99% of Afghanistan is devoutly Muslim - so there's not even a token domestic minority constituency for religious freedom. The alternative is an unfriendly government. Note that we're not through fighting terrorists as yet. Did we quibble about Stalin sending people off to gulags during WWII? Or about Chiang Kai Shek's regrettable tendency to bump his political opponents off? We can start discussing these things once al Qaeda is beaten, and Pakistan isn't run by terrorist-sponsoring leaders. Before then, we can make a few concessions to political and diplomatic realities.
#20
Note that thanks to Carter started pressuring the Shah with respect to human rights, we got Ayatollah Khomeini and his band of merry mullahs. And the Iranians were much more secular than Afghans are today.
The prominent leadership locally, regionally and statewide reeks of elitism and lacking grassroots appeal... I suggested that the March be organized and headed by a charismatic, youthful leader. No one listened, it is being headed by the old vanguard of the 60's 70's, who are totally out of touch with real issues.
#4
my favourite: Honestly, I just plain forgot. I have so many things going on with trying to find a new job and settling back in to Fresno, that I simply ran out of steam and forgot.
#6
"Well, it wasn't a bright, sunny day....and you didn't provide me with free transportation.....and a snack.....ooh, my back hurts, too....and well, the turnout was low, so I guess that means we're the majority viewpoint, so that's a success.....and my Che shirt has a mustard stain right on his beret....plus the dog ate my kaffiyeh instead of his vegetarian special diet....besides, why weren't those damn college kids hanging around the campus all weekend? Ok, *I* never did back in the day, but damn these spoiled kids!! Don't they realize there's a draft coming????"
#7
On topic (more or less)... Already known by many RBers, but worth relinking : http://www.zombietime.com/
It's like going to a virtual online freakshow, it's both exciting and sickening, I like that. Conservative, dignified people who didn't know this fine site, beware of your blood pressure browsing through this!
#8
I am telling you this low turnout smacks right in the face of polls (sic) supposedly showing an waning support for the war an Bush. If the polls were correct we should have seen a marked INCREASE of participation. Maybe I am seeing things through the wrong prism but something aint right with those polls.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
