My text for today is Hold fast that which is good: 1 Thessalonians 5:21. These are words I heard so regularly in prayers at my Anglican girls school that I have been unable to forget them. I draw them to the attention of the Archbishop of Canterbury, who seems to have forgotten them. At least, he seems to be losing his grip on what is good in this country and, indeed, to be throwing it away with both hands in his curious suggestion that aspects of sharia should be recognised in English law.
In an interview on Radio 4 last Thursday, Rowan Williams said that the introduction of parts of Islamic law here would help to maintain social cohesion and seems unavoidable. Sharia courts exist already, he pointed out. We should face up to the fact that some British citizens do not relate to the British legal system, he said, and that Muslims should not have to choose between the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty.
What he went on to say was more astonishing. He explained to the interviewer, in his gentle, wordy way, that a lot of what is written on this confusing subject suggests the ideal situation is one in which there is one law and only one law for everybody. He went on: That principle is an important pillar of our social identity as a western liberal democracy. How true.
However, he continued: Its a misunderstanding to suppose that that means people dont have other affiliations, other loyalties, which shape and dictate how they behave in society, and the law needs to take some account of that.
Stuff like this is bad for the blood pressure, but I listened on. An approach to law which simply said there is one law for everybody and that is all there is to be said . . . I think thats a bit of a danger.
What danger? And to whom? The danger, surely, is rather the archbishop and those who think like him, who seem unwilling to hold fast that which is good. What is good and best and essential about our society � it isnt merely a matter of social identity � is the principle of equality before the law. That principle and its practice have made this country the outstandingly just and tolerant state it is; it is one of the last remaining forces for unity as well.
What is also good and essential to this country is the law itself. It has evolved over centuries from medieval barbarities into something, for all its faults, that is civilised. Our law expresses and maintains the best virtues of our society. Anybody who does not accept it does not belong here.
When other legal systems or other customs clash with ours, we prefer ours, to put it mildly. At least we should; what has troubled me for years is the way that exceptions and excuses tend to be made, in the name of multiculturalism, for practices of which we do not approve. Victoria Climbiés terrible bruises were ignored because of assumptions about the cultural norms of African discipline. Last week it emerged that someone in government has sold the moral pass on polygamy: husbands with multiple wives in this country are now to get benefit payments for each wife.
In the midst of all this moral confusion and relativism, is the premier prelate in the land holding fast that which is good? Far from it. He is recommending multiculti legal cherry-picking, in which individuals would be free to choose the jurisdiction they preferred for certain matters. He even admits that his proposal introduces, uncomfortably, the idea of a market in the law, a competition for loyalty.
One encouraging sign is the almost universal fury that our foolish archbishop has aroused: he has miraculously united the irreconcilable in opposition to himself, from Christian extremists to mainstream Muslims, from Anglican vicars to godless Hampstead liberals, from Gordon Brown to backwoods Tories.
The archbishop and his few supporters insist that the media have misrepresented him and not many people have actually read the learned speech that he gave to a learned audience after his inflammatory radio interview. They are wrong. I havent seen any serious misrepresentation in the media, and reading his speech several times doesnt exonerate him. Nor does it increase respect for his judgment, his command of English or his powers of ratiocination; he is woolly of face and woolly of mind.
In any case, you do not need to follow anybodys argument to understand that legally recognising aspects of sharia is either unnecessary or undesirable. If the aspects in question accord with English law (the Anglican archbishop is speaking of England, presumably), there is no need to offer any extra provision or recognition for religious courts. They are of no interest to the law. If they dont accord with English law, they are unacceptable and should be repudiated, or even prosecuted.
All this has nothing particularly to do with it being Islamic law at issue. The same would apply to any other religious law: Hindu, Mormon or wiccan. However, there is a lot to be said against sharia and the desire of a reported 40% of British Muslims to live under it. That explains, in part, the present outrage. Sharia is rightly feared here: it is disputed, sometimes primitive, grievously in need of reform and wholly unacceptable in Britain.
So what possessed this troublesome priest to stir up this predictable fury with his divisive and unnecessary suggestions? Why did he choose to speak not just in a quiet academic meeting but also in the public glare of The World at One? And cui bono? It has most certainly not been good for ordinary British Muslims, as they well understand. It has, however, given comfort to Muslim extremists, who will see this as the thin end of their Islamist wedge.
Williamss behaviour looks like vainglorious attention-seeking, but it is also something much worse. To seek to undermine our legal system and the values on which it rests, in a spirit of unnecessary appeasement to an alien set of values, is a kind of treason. It is a betrayal of all those who struggled and died here, over the centuries, for freedom and equality under the rule of law and of their courage in the face of injustice and unreason. Theirs is the good that we should hold fast and so of all people should the Archbishop of Canterbury. Otherwise, what is he for?
minette.marrin@sunday-times.co.uk
Posted by: Fred ||
02/10/2008 11:36 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Try to hand a Bible to a Muslim and see what happens. Generally, comparative religious study can only be conducted either by Muslims of Mujtahid status, or scholars under their direction. And Muslim clerics - Ulama - recognize the Jewish and Christian Testaments as Satanic distortions. Thus, for a slave of allah to read the Bible is to read the words of Satan.
Religions are directions in life; where different directions conflict, competition is inherent. Competition between faiths exists ONLY outside of the Muslim tyrannies. Jewish and Christian communities in same have been either annihilated or are being decimated. Over 2,000,000 Christians have been coerced out of their Holy lands after World War 2. For a Christian to advocate importation of the oppressions of Shariah, is perverse.
Muslims are poised to form a majority in their first European city (Malmo, Sweden). Mutual respect and social cohesion will not be the result of Muslim control. The conduct of those savages in France's 750 plus, "zones of ethnic sensitivity" is ample proof of their intolerance. In those zones, the shariah dress code is enforce by means of violence. Muslims want that violence conducted through shariah courts.
On a personal note, prior to 9-11 a Muslim Student Assn member told me that their study area was "for Muslims only" or "dar-Islam." We are handing sovereignty to those savages.
Elected to end the war, Democrats have surrendered to Bush on Iraq and betrayed the peace movement for their own political ends. Matt Talbbi played professional basketball in Ulan-Bator, Mongolia... Hoot!
Quietly, while Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been inspiring Democrats everywhere with their rolling bitchfest, congressional super-duo Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have completed one of the most awesome political collapses since Neville Chamberlain. At long last, the Democratic leaders of Congress have publicly surrendered on the Iraq War, just one year after being swept into power with a firm mandate to end it. Gee Matt Chamberlain laid down for the real enemy. Missed that part of history 101 did ya?
Solidifying his reputation as one of the biggest pussies in U.S. political history, Reid explained his decision to refocus his party's energies on topics other than ending the war by saying he just couldn't fit Iraq into his busy schedule. "We have the presidential election," Reid said recently. "Our time is really squeezed." Well Reid is a pussy but not for what Matty's written bout
Pelosi seemed especially broken up about having to surrender on Iraq. Ya mean surrender to terrorists you POS? I couldn't read the rest. Feel free if you have the belly for it
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/10/2008 11:33 Comments ||
Top||
#7
You can see it in the turnouts for the Democratic primaries. I also see it here in Chicago more so than 2004, when Anbody but Bush almost got them over the hump. If the far right, evangelicals, and Republican's who can't stand McCain can't muster themselves to vote for McCain, then it'll be a Demcratic landslide not only for President but also the House and Senate.
#12
Again, FOX BIZN Pert [paraph] > THERE IS = WILL BE NO GOING BACK TO THE DAYS = TIME IN AMERICA BEFORE 9-11.
He meant EVERYONE, ANYONE, GOP DEM etal., plus OWG-GLOBALISM IS HERE TO STAY. THE WOT > WAR TO DEFINE + DETERMINE AMERICA'S PLACE/ROLE IN SAID OWG-NWO.
#13
Taibbi should stick to what he knows best, the myriad types of "stripes" on Russian prostitutes.
Posted by: ed ||
02/10/2008 18:52 Comments ||
Top||
#14
In truth, the Congressional Democrats did surrender to President Bush on everything important. And some of the votes for them in 2006 were to end the war, though not all, and probably not most. Nice that Mr. Taibbi noticed. I wonder what he'd thought we should do about Yugoslavia back in the '90s, or what he went on about just after 9/11. I don't wonder enough to exert myself, but I do wonder if he's anti-war or on the other side.
#15
Taibbi is on the other side. He is a self absorbed, anti enlightenment carpetbagger who went to Uzbekistan and got promptly kicked out. Then he went to Moscow to write for the Moscow Times and exile.ru. He's primarily known for writing about his heroin abuse, connoisseur of teenage Russian prostitutes, and chief ass kisser to a no good son of a Russian robber baron. In other words, perfect Rolling Stone material.
Posted by: ed ||
02/10/2008 20:41 Comments ||
Top||
I think we know what happened here. It was probably similar to this subplot from The Godfather:
Among the guests at the celebration is the famous singer Johnny Fontane, Corleone's godson, who has come from Hollywood to petition for help in landing a movie role that will revitalize his flagging career. Jack Woltz, the head of the studio, will not give Fontane the part, but Don Corleone explains to Johnny: "I'll make him an offer he can't refuse." Hagen is dispatched to California to fix the problem, but Woltz angrily tells him that he will never cast Fontane in the role, for which he is perfect, because Fontane seduced and "ruined" a starlet that Woltz favored. The next morning, Woltz wakes up to find the bloody severed head of his prize stud horse in the bed with him. Woltz gives in.
UPDATE: Jake Tapper reports that the Clintons don't want Shuster fired after all. Of course not. Now that they've shown they can yank his chain whenever they want, it's much better to keep him on the job, properly subservient!
Posted by: Mike ||
02/10/2008 08:52 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Now that's kneecappin'! Take notes, Tonya Harding!
#5
Extreme Mortman: "Its hard to read about MSNBCs relationship to the mothership Clinton campaign these days without being reminded of Vichy France."
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/10/2008 11:47 Comments ||
Top||
#6
heh
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/10/2008 11:56 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Obby, Hillary's secret lover after she dumped Reno...
ISLAMABAD, PAKISTAN, JANUARY 25--At a press conference in Islamabad today, Pakistani Brig. Gen. Atta M. Iqhman expressed concern about U.S. procedures for handling nuclear weapons. Iqhman, who oversees the safety and security of the Pakistani nuclear force, said that U.S. protocols for storing and handling nuclear weapons are inadequate. "In Pakistan, we store nuclear warheads separately from their delivery systems, and a nuclear warhead can only be activated if three separate officers agree," Iqhman said. "In the United States, almost 20 years after the end of the Cold War, nuclear weapons still sit atop missiles, on hair-trigger alert, and it only takes two launch-control officers to activate a nuclear weapon. The U.S. government has persistently ignored arms control experts around the world who have said they should at least de-alert their weapons."
Iqhman also questioned the adequacy of U.S. procedures for handling nuclear weapons. He expressed particular concern about the August 29, 2007, incident in which six nuclear weapons were accidentally loaded under the wing of a B-52 by workers who did not observe routine inspection procedures and thought they were attaching conventional weapons to the B-52. The flight navigator should have caught their mistake, but he neglected to inspect the weapons as required. For several hours the nuclear weapons were in the air without anyone's knowledge. "The United States needs to develop new protocols for storing and loading nuclear weapons, and it needs to do a better job of recruiting and training the personnel who handle them," Iqhman said.
Iqhman added the Pakistani government would be willing to offer technical advice and assistance to the United States on improving its nuclear weapons handling procedures. Speaking anonymously because of the issue's sensitivity, senior Pentagon officials said it is Washington's role to give, not receive, advice on nuclear weapons safety and surety issues.
Iqhman pointed out that the August 29 event was not an isolated incident; there have been at least 24 accidents involving nuclear weapons on U.S. planes. He mentioned a 1966 incident in which four nuclear weapons fell to the ground when two planes collided over Spain, as well as a 1968 fire that caused a plane to crash in Greenland with four hydrogen bombs aboard. In 1980, a Titan II missile in Arkansas exploded during maintenance, sending a nuclear warhead flying 600 feet through the air. In a remark that visibly annoyed a U.S. official present at the briefing, Iqhman described the U.S. nuclear arsenal as "an accident waiting to happen."
Jay Keuse of MSNBC News asked Iqhman if Pakistan was in any position to be lecturing other countries given Pakistani scientist A. Q. Khan's record of selling nuclear technology to other countries. "All nuclear weapons states profess to oppose proliferation while helping select allies acquire nuclear weapons technology," Iqhman replied. "The United States helped Britain and France obtain the bomb; France helped the Israelis; and Russia helped China. And China," he added coyly, "is said by Western media sources to have helped Pakistan. So why can't Pakistan behave like everyone else?"
Iqhman's deputy, Col. Bom Zhalot also expressed concern about the temperament of the U.S. public, asking whether they had the maturity and self-restraint to be trusted with the ultimate weapon. "Their leaders lecture us on the sanctity of life, and their president believes that every embryo is sacred, but they are the only country to have used these terrible weapons--not just once, but twice. Paul Tibbets, the pilot of the plane that bombed Hiroshima, said he never lost a night's sleep over killing 100,000 people, many of them women and children. That's scarcely human."
While Iqhman glared reproachfully at Zhalot for this rhetorical outburst, Zhalot continued: "We also worry that the U.S. commander-in-chief has confessed to having been an alcoholic. Here in Pakistan, alcohol is 'haram,' so this isn't a problem for us. Studies have also found that one-fifth of U.S. military personnel are heavy drinkers. How many of those have responsibility for nuclear weapons?"
John G. Libb of the Washington Times asked if Americans were wrong to be concerned about Pakistan's nuclear stockpile given the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in Pakistan. Colonel Zhalot replied: "Millions of Americans believe that these are the last days and that they will be raptured to heaven at the end of the world. You have a president who describes Jesus as his favorite philosopher, and one of the last remaining candidates in your presidential primaries is a preacher who doesn't believe in evolution. Many Pakistanis worry that the United States is being taken over by religious extremists who believe that a nuclear holocaust will just put the true believers on a fast track to heaven. We worry about a nutcase U.S. president destroying the world to save it."
U.S. diplomats in Pakistan declined comment.
Posted by: john frum ||
02/10/2008 12:48 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[14 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"In Pakistan, we store nuclear warheads separately from their delivery systems, and a nuclear warhead can only be activated if three separate officers agree"
Right now that's about all that separates you from a date with the U.S. Marine Corps.
"In the United States... nuclear weapons still sit atop missiles, on hair-trigger alert"
Please keep reminding Iran of that at every opportunity.
"Russia helped China. And China," he added coyly, "is said by Western media sources to have helped Pakistan"
And where do you think that leaves you with Putin reving up the Cold War?
"Their leaders lecture us on the sanctity of life, and their president believes that every embryo is sacred, but they are the only country to have used these terrible weapons"
Let he who has not acquired them cast the first stone. What did you get them for -- paperweights?
"Here in Pakistan, alcohol is haram"
But Pakistan has no problem enabling opium trade.
"the U.S. commander-in-chief has confessed to having been an alcoholic"
Past tense. Want to put some of your leaders' pasts under close scrutiny? There are worse things than having been an alcoholic.
"You have a president who describes Jesus as his favorite philosopher" -- and we all know what a nasty guy Jesus was compared to sweet Mo.
"Many Pakistanis worry that the United States is being taken over by religious extremists"
So your approach is to further antagonize us and semi-covertly support your extremists? Brilliant. Suicidally brilliant.
Way to go, guys. You just succeeded in antagonizing us even more.
#2
I think the good general has almost made the definitive case for being scared witless of the US of A, but he did miss a few points:
1- We have a lousy understanding of world geography. Islamabad is the capital of Iran, isn't it?
2- The Declaration of Independence does not actually contain the phrase "peace through fire superiority", but Jefferson later wished he had included it.
3- We invented the term "collateral damage."
4- We are heavily armed. The Pakistani army would most assuredly lose a gunfight with the female population of Tupelo, Mississippi, and would be slaughtered to a man in an assault on any mid-sized city in Texas.
5- All the polls show that we're carrying around a lot of anger right now.
And last but not least: with Hillary and Obama on deck, we may think we are in a "use it or lose it" situation.
Posted by: Matt ||
02/10/2008 15:32 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Pakistanis need a closer view of US nuclear weapons. Very close up.
#4
I look forward to the day a Pakistani's argumentative skills advance beyond Tu Coque. It will be a post muslim Pakistan, so I look forward to it soon.
Posted by: ed ||
02/10/2008 19:35 Comments ||
Top||
#5
The upcoming pakiwaki view of US nukes can be seen here:
#7
Castle Bravo was a US H-bomb test that had almost 2x the anticipated yield. If we end up having to nuke the middle east, I expect the total megatonnage dropped will be a bit more than was originally estimated...
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
02/10/2008 23:24 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Thank you, M.Murcek. Twice anticipated yield? Goodness! (There's so much history I don't know yet)
The dramatic decline in bloodshed in Iraq at least until last weeks terrible market bombings in Baghdad is largely due to Muqtada al-Sadrs August 2007 unilateral ceasefire. Made under heavy U.S. and Iraqi pressure and as a result of growing discontent from his own Shiite base, Muqtadas decision to curb his unruly movement was a positive step. But the situation remains highly fragile and potentially reversible. If the U.S. and others seek to press their advantage and deal the Sadrists a mortal blow, these gains are likely to be squandered, with Iraq experiencing yet another explosion of violence. The need is instead to work at converting Muqtadas unilateral measure into a more comprehensive multilateral ceasefire that can create conditions for the movement to evolve into a fully legitimate political actor.
The Sadrists appeared on a steady rise in 2006 and early 2007. They controlled new territory, particularly in and around Baghdad, attracted new recruits, accumulated vast resources and infiltrated the police. But as the civil war engulfed much of the country, Iraqis witnessed the Sadrists most brutal and thuggish side. Their increasingly violent and undisciplined militia, the Mahdi Army, engaged in abhorrent sectarian killings and resorted to plunder and theft. Militants claiming to be Mahdi Army members executed untold numbers of Sunnis, allegedly in response to al-Qaedas ruthless attacks, but more often than not merely because they were Sunnis.
The Sadrists were victims of their own success. Their movements vastly increased wealth, membership and range of action led to greater corruption, weaker internal cohesion and a popular backlash. Divisions within the movement deepened; splinter groups often little more than criminal offshoots proliferated. As a result, anti-Sadrist sentiment grew, including among Muqtadas Shiite constituency. The U.S. surge, which saw the injection of thousands of additional troops, particularly in Baghdad, worsened the Sadrists situation, checking and, in some instances, reversing the Mahdi Armys territorial expansion. Finally, in August 2007, major clashes erupted in the holy city of Karbala between members of Muqtadas movement and the rival Shiite Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), which further eroded the Sadrists standing.
In reaction, Muqtada announced a six-month freeze on all Mahdi Army activities. It applies to all groups affiliated (loosely or otherwise) with the Mahdi Army, and Muqtada reportedly dispatched his most loyal fighters to tame holdouts. Most importantly, his order removed the veil of legitimacy and lifted the impunity that many groups criminal gangs operating in the Mahdi Armys name and Sadrist units gone astray had enjoyed.
#1
Who is this "International Crisis Group" and where does their financing come from. They have come up with some pretty "interesting" (sarc off) stuff lately that is calculated to cut us off at the knees. Soros or Saudi (or both)?
#2
From their website about page, the ICG gets about 40% of their funding from a couple dozen governments, the rest from individuals and foundations. I'd guess Soros throws them a chunk of change but I don't have the energy tonight to find a link.
Still a bunch of tranzis.
Posted by: Steve White ||
02/10/2008 1:00 Comments ||
Top||
#3
"Muqtadas decision likely reflected a pragmatic calculation: that a halt in hostilities would help him stay above room temperature restore his credibility and allow him to reorganise his forces and wait out the U.S. presence.
Might as well point out the real reason for the change...
#4
Islamofascists don't share power, unless it serves temporary goals. Potato head would be old news if not for Iranian intervention.
The cutting of Persian Gulf internet and telecommunication cables last week, might signal that something is brewing. However, it could have been an accident.
#5
The cutting of Persian Gulf internet and telecommunication cables last week, might signal that something is brewing. However, it could have been an accident
yeah, all five cuts.....
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/10/2008 10:14 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Two of the cuts were found to be from a discarded anchor probably moved across the sea bed during the big storm that passed through.
#7
Sadr declared a ceasefire after his/Iran's latest attempt to seize Amarah failed miserably when the Badr militia kicked Madhi ass. He rightly feared the Iraqi Army w/ US backing was going to come after him personally.
Posted by: ed ||
02/10/2008 19:56 Comments ||
Top||
Iran's most influential women's magazine, Zanan, has become the latest victim of a government intent on censoring, harassing and imprisoning opponents, journalists in particular. Officials accused the monthly journal of damaging society by being too negative toward Iran and closed the publication Jan. 28.
Zanan is hardly alone, of course. Iranian courts have used similar rationale to close many scores of newspapers and magazines in the last 10 years, particularly those that called for free speech and greater civil liberties. But Zanan, which means "women" in Farsi, was one of a kind; it was the only serious women's magazine in Iran and had a wide following, both in Iran and around the world.
Zanan's crusading editor, Shahla Sherkat, who lives in Tehran, founded the magazine 16 years ago to explore serious topics that affect women in the Islamic Republic: politics, women in prison, international issues affecting women and the impact Islamic law has on women's lives. Sherkat also ran book reviews, stories about women in sports and health issues, among other topics.
Both Zanan and Sherkat were survivors. Many journalists were amazed that Sherkat managed to keep her magazine open so long, especially since President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came to power in 2005. In the last 18 months alone the government has closed 42 magazines and newspapers, according to Fariba Amini, the editor of the Persian version of IJNet, a Web page for the International Center for Journalists, based in Washington.
"Shekat knew how to walk the red line," Camelia Entekhabi-Fard, an Iranian journalist, said on Feb. 6. The "red line" is code for the boundary in Iran between writing the truth in acceptable and unacceptable ways. "Walking that line is an art form," Entekhabi-Fard said, one that Sherkat understood better than anyone.
Only time will tell whether the shutdown is temporary or permanent. If it's temporary it could be because the press advisory board that shut down Zanan doesn't have the legal authority to take such a step, Tohidi said. But the political atmosphere is becoming increasingly tense as Iran, burdened with high unemployment, inflation and food shortages, faces nationwide elections March 14.
Sherkat, in the face of constant intimidation, always found a way to write about the truth of what was happening. It will be a tragedy for Iran, journalism and women everywhere if her voice is silenced for long.
#1
Outrage in America's University Womens Departments in 9, 8, 7...oh, wait, never mind.
You think if we point out that Persian males are aligned by come anthropologists in the same gene family as white North American males they'd pay attention?
Senior global policymakers have raised projections for the size of subprime-related credit losses in a move that implies financial institutions will have to increase write-offs.
Speaking after the meeting of Group of Seven finance leaders, Peer Steinbrück, German finance minister, said the G7 now feared that write-offs of losses on securities linked to US subprime mortgages could reach $400bn.
This is sharply higher than the $120bn credit losses that Wall Street banks and other institutions have revealed in recent weeks - and also far bigger than the US Federal Reserve's estimates for subprime losses last year of $100bn-$150bn.
But G7 finance ministers admitted that it remained unclear where much of this subprime pain would eventually emerge, not least because the path of the credit crunch was still uncertain. Mr Steinbrück and other ministers appealed to financial institutions to provide "prompt and full disclosure'' of losses, to restore confidence.
"The next 10 days to two weeks will be crucial because we are going to have the first audited accounts [from financial institutions] since the crisis started," added Mario Draghi, governor of the Bank of Italy and chair of the Financial Stability Forum, a committee of international supervisors and central bankers.
Mr Draghi said regulators were ready to force banks to reveal their losses and replenish their equity ratios. He did not rule out the possibility that governments might eventually need to inject capital into banks, although he stressed that market solutions should take precedence.
The comments followed a weekend of G7 talks that were dominated by the credit turmoil and the implications of these problems for the global economy.
The finance ministers said they stood braced for individual and collective action to ensure financial stability and avoid recession. They conceded that growth was likely to slow in all their economies, since the world was facing what Hank Paulson, US Treasury secretary, called a "challenging and uncertain environment", due to tighter credit, a deterioration of the US housing market, higher oil prices and rising inflation.
But Mr Paulson said he believed the US stood a good chance of avoiding recession. "I believe that we are going to keep growing. If you are growing, you are not in recession, right?"
He said the G7 discussion focused on "how we minimise the spillover that is going on in the capital markets into the broader economy".
He said he was not disappointed that Japan and European countries had rejected the idea, floated by Dominique Strauss-Kahn, International Monetary Fund head, for joint efforts to stimulate their economies by fiscal packages. He implied that other countries would not escape a US downturn, describing decoupling as a "myth".
#1
"why wait for real figures, when you can panic now?"
/senior global policymakers. When did they create that position? Why wasn't I notified??
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/10/2008 20:35 Comments ||
Top||
#2
> Japan and European countries had rejected the idea, floated by Dominique Strauss-Kahn, International Monetary Fund head, for joint efforts to stimulate their economies by fiscal packages.
It's a dumb idea. Send yourself a cheque and see how much richer you feel.
#3
I've worked for a number of banks and banking is basically about managing risk. Risk being the probability a loan won't be repaid.
The main way banks manage risk is to limit the amount loaned to some percentage the asset used to secure the loan. Generally this is 50% or less of the current value of the asset, eg shares.
Only with real estate is the percentage much higher and the amount loaned close to 100% of the current value of the asset.
As long as real estate kept going up in price which it has done every year since 1945 in most countries, everything is fine. When real estate starts a marked decline then all real estate secured lending becomes at risk (because of contagion - selling results in lower prices which results in more selling).
How much money are we talking about? At a rough calculation - 30 trillion dollars - several times the market cap of all the banks in the world and roughly the same as all the government debt in the world.
A few billion here, a few billion there, pretty soon we are talking real money.
Another example of how markets and capitalism are bad at handling large risks.
Lewis sets out to show that the failure of what he calls "the jihad east of the Pyrenees" is "one of the most significant losses in world history." He argues that the Frankish defeat of the Islamic invaders at Poitiers in 732 and the subsequent poetic glorification of Roland's sacrifice to cover Charlemagne's retreat from his own incursion into Spain were "pivotal moments in the creation of an economically retarded, balkanized and fratricidal Europe that, by defining itself in opposition to Islam, made virtues out of hereditary aristocracy, persecutory religious intolerance, cultural particularism and perpetual war ... 'winning' at Poitiers actually meant that the economic, scientific and cultural levels that Europeans attained in the 13th century could almost certainly have been achieved more than three centuries earlier had they been included in the Muslim world empire."
In other words, the West would be better off if it had been incorporated into an all-conquering Islamic empire in the early Middle Ages.
OK.
Still, it's fair to wonder why, if that's true, the West ended up with the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution and the Scientific Revolution, and the Islamic world got chronic underdevelopment, a pervasive religious obscurantism, al-Qaida and the trust-fund states of the Arabian peninsula. It's also fair to point out that both the Muslim philosopher Averroes and the Jewish philosopher-physician Maimonides were sent fleeing by Islamic fundamentalists and not the Christian Reconquista. Moreover, the Carolingian incursion into Spain was a response to an invitation by Saracen grandees fearful of Abd al-Rahman's expanding hegemony.
An impeccably democratic, humane scholar, Lewis has an understanding of the origins and failures of European civilization that far surpasses his knowledge of Islam.
#1
Islam set back humanity by hundreds of years. And we still pay the Muslim-Tax. Ergo: get rid of Islam. Nuke Mecca and Medina and, without some place to conduct Hajj, the Muslims will dump their murder cult.
What exactly do we get from peaceful coexistence with the slaves of allah? That is the biggest bill of goods ever peddled. We couldn't defeat Communism militarily, because of the balance of terror. There is NOTHING to stop us from laying waste to the worst dreg on humanity, except our will to recognize a mortal enemy.
#2
"without some place to conduct Hajj, the Muslims will dump their murder cult" Nope, that wouldn't happen, any more than the destruction(s) of the Temple destroyed the Jewish religion.
As far as the failure of what Lewis calls "the jihad east of the Pyrenees" being "one of the most significant losses in world history," where is H. L. Mencken now that we need him? He once wrote Here is something that the psychologists have so far neglected: the love of ugliness for its own sake, the lust to make the world intolerable.
Posted by: ed ||
02/10/2008 17:28 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Year 2oo8 is the YEAR OF RECKONING for the US, the West, the UNO + World i.e. GLOBAL DEMOCRATIC ORDER versus GLOBAL SOCIALIST ORDER, GLOBAL/NEW GIRL ORDER, .................@etc. even for my home island of Guam albeit I don't believe many Chamorros-Guamanians realize it yet, nor want to.
ISLAM = RADIC ISLAMISM > AQ + Islamism is presently LOSING THEIR WAR IN THE ME as per Dubya-USA's LOCAL/REGIONAL-GLOBAL ENTRENCHMENT. AS LONG AS RADICAL ISLAM REFUSES OR OTHWERWISE FAILS TO ATTACK CONUS PER SE AS FOR ANTI-"GREAT POWER GEOPOL, IMO THE ONLY WAY THEN FOR ISLAMISM TO DEFEAT OR STOP US ME ENTRENCHMENT WOULD BE FOR THE SO-CALLED ISLAMIST "HIDDEN IMAM-MAHDI" ETC TO ACTUALLY MANIFEST HIMSELF, TO LEAD AND DESTROY US MILFORS = PRESENCE/DOMIN IN THE ME.
OSAMA BIN LADEN and I helped to destroy the Soviet army in Afghanistan - the question at the moment is whether IRAN-CENTRIC/FOCII OSAMA + AQ IS PHYSICALLY ABLE, GIVEN OSAMA'S WELL-REPORTED HEALTH PROBLEMS, TO LEAD HIS OWN DESIRED
"APOCALYPSE" = ISLAMIST versus NON-ISLAMIST "FINAL/DECISIVE" BATTLE IN IRAN, ESPEC NOW THAT THE THRESHOLD IS HERE??? DITTO FOR MOUD??? Bear in mind that by most theological descriptions, the so-called HIDDN IMAM-MAHDI will serve the interests of GOD/ALLAH + HEAVEN, NOTSOMUCH OSAMA, MOUD, Mohammed, or even ISLAM-ISLAMISM's - also bear in mind that, by definition, just as Islam = Radical Islamism's Messiah is manifest to "justify" Islam + lead same agz the non-Islamic World, BY DEFINITION/EXTENS THE "MESSIAHS/SAVIORS", ETC. OF NON-ISLAMIC WORLD FAITHS MAY ALSO MANIFEST TO LEAD/DEFEND THEIR OWN AGZ ISLAM AND THE ISLAMIC IMMAM-MAHDI???
Among other premises, then, the GWOT + OSAMIAN-MOUDIAN "APOCALYPSE" > CLASH OF FAITHS/MESSIAHS = WAR BTWN THE FAITHS/WORLD RELIGIONS. Iff the OSAMAIAN-MOUDIAN IMAM-MAHDI IS TO SAVE RADICAL ISLAMISM + ISLAMIC-ISLAMIST OWG GLOBAL AGENDA, then he must appear btwn now NLT 2010 WHILE US ENTRENCHMENT EFFORTS IN THE ME IS STILL WEAK ENUFF TO BE POTEN CHALLENGED = DESTROYED BY RADICAL ISLAMISM ONLY, espec given the post 2008, post-Dubya flux within the US NPE.
AFTER 2008-2010 > the survival of the Radical Islamist agenda will depend more and more on MUTUALLY DESTRUCTIVE, "GREAT POWERS" CONFRONTATION, e.g. RUSSIA-CHINA's ANTI-US "WAR IS NOT ONLY POSSIBLE BUT DESIRED" SCENARIOS. By Russ-China's own accounts, ANTI-US 'DESIRED WAR" > RUSSIA = circa 2018, CHINA circa 2014 or as dependent on TAIWAN's actions.
IOW, 2008-2010 > WORLD ISLAM + RADICAL ISLAMISM, INCLUDING ISLAMIC/ISLAMIST TERROR, WILL EITHER BE SAVED = "JUSTIFIED" AS A WORTHY DIVINE FAITH; OR ELSE DISCREDITED AS A DIVINE FAITH = DIVINE BASIS FOR TERROR.
AND NOW YOU KNOW, VIRGINIA, YET ANOTHER REASON FOR "WHITNEY versus MADONNA" IN THE 1960's.
MADONNA FANS > BEFORE MTV, GOD CREATED MTV [theme from Dragnet = STAR WARS Empire theme here]
Where MADONNA = JOSEPHINE BONAPARTE BUUURPS, OWG-NWO + SUN/EARTH CHANGES, etc. FOLLOW.
I have to disagree about Islamic survivability, with their Hajj gonzo. Jews accept Temple Mount as a social center. For the slaves of allah, the Kaba is their deity's portal to earth; its significance is supernatural. Muslims cannot and do not recognize any absolute sovereignty, other than that of their deity. And given that nature, Muslims believe that the creator of the universe would protect his portal. If it was destroyed, then the fear-based charisma that led the cult to flourish would abate. No Kaba; no Islam.
Some regulars here still trust Muslims as partners in the GWOT. I don't. As I write a young Afghan is in jail awaiting a death sentence. His crime? He downloaded an essay on the human rights of women, and showed it to a single colleague.
What is the problem of finding Islam in itself, as unconscionable? Why are Muslims no less repugnant than Nazis or Communists, or cannibals?
#6
McZoid, ya' got a point, but 'ffraid 's not so simple.
You need to knock off 3 pillars entirely, so Islam would not have enough to stand on.
Islam and the cultural rules are mutually intertwined--after Islam's demise the cultural norms and customs would be still relatively unscathed.
Your strategy has to take that into account. You'd need to provide a "replacement" belief system, but that won't take overnight.
Maybe one needs to start from the replacement end and let it corrode the Islamic paradigm and when the prep work is at an advanced stage, then reach for the jugular.
BTW, I have hunch that Mecca would be nuked, but not by us, rather by Islam adherents themselves, maybe shia.
#7
Still, it's fair to wonder why, if that's true, the West ended up with the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution and the Scientific Revolution, and the Islamic world got chronic underdevelopment, a pervasive religious obscurantism, al-Qaida and the trust-fund states of the Arabian peninsula. It's also fair to point out that both the Muslim philosopher Averroes and the Jewish philosopher-physician Maimonides were sent fleeing by Islamic fundamentalists and not the Christian Reconquista. Moreover, the Carolingian incursion into Spain was a response to an invitation by Saracen grandees fearful of Abd al-Rahman's expanding hegemony.
From Armed and Dangerous: This article traces the current memetic warfare the Islamicists are practicing against the West to the original Soviet disinformation program spearheaded by Gramsci.
In a previous post on Suicidalism, I identified some of the most important of the Soviet Unions memetic weapons. Here is that list again:
There is no truth, only competing agendas.
All Western (and especially American) claims to moral superiority over Communism/Fascism/Islam are vitiated by the Wests history of racism and colonialism.
There are no objective standards by which we may judge one culture to be better than another. Anyone who claims that there are such standards is an evil oppressor.
The prosperity of the West is built on ruthless exploitation of the Third World; therefore Westerners actually deserve to be impoverished and miserable.
Crime is the fault of society, not the individual criminal. Poor criminals are entitled to what they take. Submitting to criminal predation is more virtuous than resisting it.
The poor are victims. Criminals are victims. And only victims are virtuous. Therefore only the poor and criminals are virtuous. (Rich people can borrow some virtue by identifying with poor people and criminals.)
For a virtuous person, violence and war are never justified. It is always better to be a victim than to fight, or even to defend oneself. But oppressed people are allowed to use violence anyway; they are merely reflecting the evil of their oppressors.
When confronted with terror, the only moral course for a Westerner is to apologize for past sins, understand the terrorists point of view, and make concessions. Much more interesting background in the article - worth a read
#1
"When confronted with terror, the only moral course for a Westerner is to apologize for past sins, understand the terrorists point of view, and make concessions."
Ok, I'm down with that.
I'm sorry the terrorists are such sinners, continuing the long line of similar sins committed by so many of their co-terroristsreligionists for the past 1300+ years as they systematically went about destroying every culture they touched.
I understand the terrorists think they're better than we are. Like all narcissistic assholes, they're completely WRONG, but I understand that they think it.
I concede that we need to kill them before they kill us, and, unlike many in the West, I don't even claim to regret it.
Faster, please.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
02/10/2008 0:32 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Well said, Barbara. I completely concur. When are you going to run for office? Count me in for a contribution.
#3
Thanks, JB, but hold on to your cash for awhile.
I'll be tossing my hat in the ring sometime between never and NEVER.
If I ever want to submit myself to a public proctology exam in the middle of Broad Street at high noon on a weekday, I can do it here at home - for free.
No need to run for office pay for the privilege.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
02/10/2008 2:03 Comments ||
Top||
#4
All Western (and especially American) claims to moral superiority over Communism/Fascism/Islam are vitiated by the West�s history of racism and colonialism.
No, our superiority is based upon the delivery more of the goods and better and longer life to more people than anytime in history. When we were exporting more wheat to the world [to include you] than you were exporting death and destruction, it was very clear who had the vision of the future and who lingered in the past. The American philosophy is to "leave me alone and I'll make my own happiness" versus yours of "I'm in control, you'll enjoy this whether you like it or not". Sell it to the kids worldwide who wear t-shits, jeans, listen to rock, and lay back with a Coke. Resistance is futile. :)
#5
I remember reading this when it first came out, and admiring the truth of it.
Even more enlightening is the comments section. The ones critical of the article are most revealing. I've come to the conclusion that many of those who want to take down the West (leftists living amongst us Westerners and Islamicists alike) want to destroy us not because they think their systems and meme sets are better but simply out of viciousness, nihilism, or even ennui.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
02/10/2008 9:35 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I had to comment, based on P2K's post. I noticed that for the first time in decades, the US would likely import wheat this coming year. We apparently over committed on export sales. Sold more than we raised in 2007. Note the price on futures for wheat in 2008. Never been this high. The spouting f**knuts can start carrying their own load. May have a lot less time and energy to blame all their problems on USA from now on.
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.
The dramatic decline in bloodshed in Iraq at least until last weeks terrible market bombings in Baghdad is largely due to Muqtada al-Sadrs August 2007 unilateral ceasefire. Made under heavy U.S. and Iraqi pressure and as a result of growing discontent from his own Shiite base, Muqtadas decision to curb his unruly movement was a positive step. But the situation remains highly fragile and potentially reversible. If the U.S. and others seek to press their advantage and deal the Sadrists a mortal blow, these gains are likely to be squandered, with Iraq experiencing yet another explosion of violence. The need is instead to work at converting Muqtadas unilateral measure into a more comprehensive multilateral ceasefire that can create conditions for the movement to evolve into a fully legitimate political actor.
