The federal government is a bull that has found yet another china shop, this time in Arizona. It seems determined to inflict, for angelic motives and progressive goals, economic damage on this state. Yeah, yeah - Big Bad Coal. Who cares?
And economic and social damage on Native Americans, who over the years have experienced quite enough of that at Washington's hands. Oh. Do the Progressives care about Native Americans?
The gain from this pain? The most frequently cited study says "research to date . . . is inconclusive as to whether" there would be "any perceptible improvement in visibility at the Grand Canyon and other areas of concern." The Environmental Protection Agency says that the Navajo Generating Station (NGS) is "near" 11 national parks, several of which are 175 miles distant.
The NGS on Navajo land in northern Arizona burns coal from the Kayenta Mine, which is co-owned by the Navajo and Hopi nations. The EPA is pondering whether all three units of the NGS should be required to install the "best available" emission-control technologies, perhaps costing more than $1.1 billion. More than 80 percent of the power plant's employees are Navajo, many of whom speak Navajo to help preserve the nation's culture. In 2007, the percentage of the Navajo Nation's population living in poverty was 36.8. Can't the Navajos tell the EPA to buzz off?
An Arizona State University study estimates that between now and 2044, the NGS and the mine will contribute $20 billion to the state's economy and provide 3,000 jobs each year. If there is an NGS. Its site lease expires in 2019. If the EPA mandates the most expensive technologies, each of the NGS owners would have to weigh whether it is sensible to make large capital investments in a plant that might not operate after that. Furthermore, one of the six owners of the NGS is the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, which may be prohibited by California law -- the state may be destitute, but it is determined to fix the climate -- from making investments that will extend the life of coal-fired plants.
Testifying to Congress last February, an EPA official uttered the six-word incantation that summarizes Obama administration policies and progressivism generally: "We do not have to choose." It is, the official said, quoting President Obama, a "false debate" that we have to choose between the "public health benefits from reducing air pollution from power plants" and "growing this economy in a robust way." Environment first, last, and only - then we'll see if anybody can find a job.
But benefits usually have costs. And in reality -- which is the region contiguous to Washington -- two pertinent questions usually are: How much government do you want, and how much are you willing to pay for it in diminished economic growth? The Obama administration consistently favors more government and, believing that "we do not have to choose," is mystified by stubbornly sluggish growth. You reading this, Mittens?
In 1990, Congress passed the Clean Air Act amendments, which high-mindedly mandated restoration of visibility in parks and wilderness areas to natural conditions. "Natural" meaning what? Before humanity? Anyway, the EPA is empowered to make this happen, so it empowers its professional writers of regulations -- sometimes 26-year-olds fresh from law school -- to maximize regulations to that end. These are regulations that others must live with while minimizing the damage the regulations cause.
The Navajo have been here before. EPA regulations caused the closure of the Mohave Generating Station near Laughlin, Nev., which was the sole buyer of coal from the Black Mesa Mine, leading it to cease operations. The mine's land is co-owned by the Navajo and Hopi nations. I wonder how many Navajos and Hopis were thrown out of work? Do you suppose someone made a profit off the sale of the coal? Used the electricty - back when it was cheaper? Since they are now on the Dem dole, I guess that's a good thing.
This story has become as American as "The Great Gatsby," wherein Tom and Daisy Buchanan "smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness . . . and let other people clean up the mess they had made."
Posted by: Bobby ||
07/08/2012 14:40 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
Methinks that the Navajo Nation better assert themselves as that entity in their court battles. They do have treaties with the US Govt. I would think that they have more clout than the EPA in this issue if push comes to shove.
Maybe the EPA can shut down LA area for the same reasons. Hey, go for it and see how for you get.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
07/08/2012 18:16 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Navajos and Hopis have had run-ins with the EPA before and don't appreciate their 'help' too much. As the gentleman running the gas station in Tuba City, Az. told my wife and me when questioned as to why their fuel didn't contain ethanol, he answered "we won't use food to run our cars".
Posted by: Mullah Richard ||
07/08/2012 19:59 Comments ||
Top||
Turkey is being pushed into a role which will recoil on it unless it rethinks its policy in West Asia.
For decades Ankara has been trying in vain to join the European Union ...the successor to the Holy Roman Empire, only without the Hapsburgs and the nifty uniforms and the dancing... . "European Civilization was essentially Christian" proclaimed French Statesmen, Giscard d'Estaing. Many said Turkey, being Moslem, had no role in that club. And now the same interests are mobilizing Turkey for their plans in West Asia.
For years Rauf Denktash argued the Turkish Cypriot case for joint management with the Greek half. Once the issue was close to resolution under the Annan plan. At the last minute, Turkey was ditched. Greek Cypriots were given EU membership. There was always a certain shoddiness with which the West treated Turkey.
Ofcourse, the Turks extracted a great deal of good in trying to measure up to EU standards. The economy, environment, civic amenities, tourism - everything improved. Turkey began to register growth in all spheres.
Imagine Greece, mother of Western Civilization, on its knees next door. TV pictures of middle class office goers looking into garbage bins to retrieve whatever is of value - old newspapers for instance.
These are telling images. The contrast with an economically and politically secure Turkey, just across the Aegean Sea is even more galling.
It is universally acknowledged that President Lula da Silva in Brazil and Prime Minister Tayyep Erdogan are two of the most charismatic leaders whose popularity has been reflected in their successive electoral returns. Erdogan's vote share has risen from 36 percent to, 42% to 50%.
But according to Turkish law, Erdogan cannot seek a fourth term. At this time, therefore, the internal political situation in Turkey has livened up.
With quickening politics, should Erdogan be seen to be losing momentum in the next political season, there are enough internal and external interests which can join hands to check, even reverse, mild Islamism in favour of mild Kemalism with which they are more comfortable.
Historically adversarial relations between Turkey and Europe suggest the West would not lose sleep if Turkey were to stumble.
Erdogan had at the outset spelt out his goal as building a nation at peace with all its neighbours. What we have instead is Turkey embroiled in conflicts all around. Something is going out of control.
Although neighbouring Iraq did not become three distinct states as Peter Galbraith had predicted, the semi-autonomous status of Iraqi Kurdistan was the sort of status quo custom made for Turkey. South East Turkey was virtually indistinguishable from Kurdish Iraq. Turkish business was booming. The assembly house in Arbil, airport in Suleimaniyah were being built by Turkish businessmen.
By offering itself on an anti Assad plank, Turkey has exposed itself as a target for Kurdish militancy in which Syria, Iraq and Iran can all join hands.
Kemal Pasha Ataturk had by an edict transformed Turkey into a nation of Turks. No other entity existed. Gradually, a Kurdish entity has been accepted. Likewise, the Alawites. There is a silent but substantial Alawite minority in Turkey.
Should the Sunni-Alawite conflict grow in Syria, Turkey will not remain untouched.
Turkish co-operation with the US has been mutually beneficial in the Balkans. The creation of a Moslem state of Kosovo is very much a joint US-Turkish project. A great deal of this co-ordination is despite Russian opposition. Russia has Slavic plus the Eastern Orthodox Church links with the Balkans. In fact, the Orthodox Church links are very strong with Greece too.
Turkish role in trying to dethrone Assad would provoke Russia coming in directly in the eastern Mediterranean, ofcourse, where oil and gas on vast scales are in the bargain.
What should worry Turkey more is Russia pressing on other pressure points. Recently thousands of citizens of Mitrovica, a Serbian dominated district of Kosovo bordering Serbia, sought Russian citizenship!
Turkey is playing a role with Iran and with the Arab world. The latter conjures up images of the Ottoman Empire, anathema with Arabs. Erdogan's visceral Islamism impels him to help likeminded groups in the Arab world. This raises the hackles of closet Kemalists in Turkey.
Iran, Israel, new Egypt are all new and complicated arenas, traversing which could cause Erdogan to fall flat. What Turkey needs is to revert to a policy of peace with all its neighbour. CIA Special Forces operating from Turkey will harm Turkey more than they will Syria.
[Dawn] "LOCAL officials said the family of Fareeda had not informed them about the threats..." So reads a sentence from Dawn's report on the horrendous killing of a woman NGO worker in Jamrud. No one has as yet grabbed credit for the murder, which took place on Wednesday, but it bears all the hallmarks of a targeting killing by religious cut-thoats. The belief that women would not be targeted in this manner in the conservative Pakhtun culture has proved erroneous. The principle the forces of Evil subscribe to now is one that sets them against all NGO workers -- men and women. There is a pall of fear in the areas stalked by the krazed killers; although there must also be those people who are determined to carry on despite the danger they expose themselves to. If the family of the brutally bumped off Fareeda had received threats, circumstances demanded that they should have informed the law enforcers. Yet the fact is that no reminder needs to be sent to the administration about the long prevailing law and order situation that facilitates murder and other acts of crime.
A day after young Fareeda, the sole breadwinner in her family, was killed, there were reports that some NGOs were shutting down their field offices in a troubled part of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, ... formerly NWFP, still Terrorism Central... Kohistan. ...a backwoods district of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa distinguished by being even more rustic than is the norm among the local Pashtuns.... They have no option since the administration has abjectly failed to provide them with protection. Well-known human rights When they're defined by the state or an NGO they don't mean much... activist Zarteef Afridi was killed last December right where Fareeda lived and died. Soldiers have been ambushed, many members of the ruling Awami National Party have been killed and other political parties are also under attack. Clearly, and despite the war, the forces of Evil have deep roots in Pakistain. The fight will require a more concerted effort, not just by the 'authorities' but by the people in general.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/08/2012 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under: TTP
There is no doubt that Pakistain is in trouble. The world says that. Every Pak says that too. But the diagnoses of the two are different. That inclines Pakistain to disagree and take on the world for the wrong diagnosis. The world thinks Pakistain tolerates terrorism inside its territory and is either unwilling to counter it or lacks the capacity to do so. Pakistain thinks terrorism is caused by powers from outside (the US, India, Israel); therefore Pakistain has to fight these powers if possible with the help of its 'reformed' terrorists.
The world analyses Pakistain's disease in light of facts; Pakistain analyses the world outsides through strong emotion. It accomplishes the task in two methodologies that mutually undermine themselves. In English, it reveals facts about itself that are unsavoury. Those who do so can be bullied or even killed.
In Urdu, the paranoid response of the state is monolithic. English punctures the microcosm of a nationalist comprehension of the world. Urdu is the carrier of raw emotion and contains textbook solutions of crises. Urdu cannot violate the rule of its discourse. You can get away with the truth in English but not in Urdu. The state, the Taliban and Al Qaeda all scan Urdu carefully. You can get killed.
'Pakistain, however, is a land of extremes - scarcely anything survives in the country without morphing into a dangerously virulent version of itself. The government is getting weaker and more ineffective, the judiciary is taking its activism up a notch, the opposition is getting louder and more obstructive by the minute, and so on.
The Western assessment of Pakistain as a 'failing' terrorist state intimidated by the likes of Defence of Pakistain Council was prefaced this year by Stephen P Cohen's edited book The Future of Pakistain. In an interview he gave to Pak journalist Malik Siraj Akbar, he made the following observations after admitting that 'In my chapter, I paid special attention to the decline of the Pak state. The more I looked, the more pessimistic I became':
'The army can't govern the country effectively but it won't let others govern it either. This is the governance dilemma. Pakistain is stuck between being an outright military dictatorship and a stable democracy. Neither are likely, and an even less likely future would be a radical transformation and the rise of Islamists or a breakaway movement led by the Baloch or other separatist groups.
'We did not see this coming soon, yet with the obvious breakdown of law and order, the decline of the economy, as well as a dysfunctional civilian-military relationship - change seems to be in the wind - but few of us can be precise about what that change will be. Pakistain is muddling through, but change and transformation are coming, I just don't know when or how.
'Weakness in governance, education, and the absence of land reform made Pakistain a victim of contemporary globalisation. It doesn't make much that anyone wants to buy, and it is cut off from its natural regional trading partners. Yet, the negative aspects of Islamist globalisation have hit Pakistain hard. Some of the weirdest ideas in the Islamic world have found rich soil in Pakistain, and the country is regarded as an epicentre of terrorism. Pakistain, which was once held up as the most moderate of the Islamic states, seems to be embracing hard boyz and their dysfunctional violent ideas'.
American scholar Christine Fair, regarded as a balanced commentator on Pakistain not long ago, said this in her Foreign Policy article What to do about Pakistain?(21 June, 2012): 'Pakistain is in crisis. Its courts act on whim rather than jurisprudence. Its political parties are vast pools of corrupt patronage networks that aggregate elite interests while disregarding the interests of Pakistain's struggling masses.
'Neither elected politicians nor military rulers have had the political courage to right the nation's fiscal woes by enforcing income tax or imposing industrial and agricultural taxes on the ruling elites and their networks of influence. While the army has retrenched from a direct role in politics, it has done so likely because it has no other option: Pakistain's military suffered a mighty humiliation after the bin Laden raid, which left many citizens wondering whether their country is a failed state, a rogue state, or both'.
Paula Newberg, the Marshall B Coyne Director of the Institute for the Study of Diplomacy at Georgetown University, is author of an early book about Pakistain's constitutional and judicial development and has made the following observations about Pakistain.
'As Pakistain's talks with NATO ...the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Originally it was a mutual defense pact directed against an expansionist Soviet Union. In later years it evolved into a mechanism for picking the American pocket while criticizing the cut of the American pants... over transit to Afghanistan are deadlocked and its fledgling parliamentary system is struggling to stabilise, the country has received a knock from inside. In a move that amounts to a judicial coup d'etat, the country's Supreme Court has barred Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani from office based on his conviction for contempt of court.
'The court has thrown the government into disarray, jeopardised domestic political relationships, cast a shadow over the country's fiscal stability and complicated Pakistain's exceedingly difficult foreign policy choices. The court's instructions to President Asif Ali Ten Percent Zardari ... husband of the late Benazir Bhutto, who has been singularly lacking in curiosity about who done her in ... "to ensure continuation of the democratic process through parliamentary system of government" - language ironic in tone if not intent - implicitly call for fresh elections, even while political authority is far from clear.
'The Supreme Court's opinion muddies the waters by challenging Pakistain's delicate civil-military balance, casting doubt on the neutrality and impartiality of the courts, and testing the fundamental constitutional relationships among the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government.
'For all its verbal obeisance to democracy, the court has forced the country into yet another domestic crisis when it had yet to muster the tools to solve its pressing foreign policy problems. With elections in both the US and Pakistain poised to change their terms of engagement, one more misstep could be costly indeed'.
The CNN website carried an article titled Pakistain collapsing from within (27 June 2012):
'This internal spectacle - Supreme Court's dismissal of the prime minister and the political turmoil enveloping Pakistain - will likely affect negotiations with the US over pressing issues such as the reopening of NATO supply routes. If the civilian government wants to make any serious concessions, the opposition will likely criticise the government and add to its already deep unpopularity. The government might then let the fear of this backlash impact their decision-making.
'Also, the step taken by the Supreme Court epitomises a wider, dangerous and historical trend in Pakistain: weak civilian governments find it difficult to command legitimacy and are constantly challenged by other internal institutions.
'History repeats itself all the time in Pakistain, and this is not a good sign for a country where the average time an elected government stays in power is less than two years. In a relatively stable democracy, several institutions serve as checks and balances on one another.
'Pakistain, however, is a land of extremes - scarcely anything survives in the country without morphing into a dangerously virulent version of itself. The government is getting weaker and more ineffective, the judiciary is taking its activism up a notch, the opposition is getting louder and more obstructive by the minute, and so on.
'In a country facing an economic crisis, an energy crisis and a growing population that far outstrips available resources, internal political strife is a time-consuming, distracting and often dangerous business'.
The two narratives are not reconcilable. As a weak and troubled state, Pakistain has to develop a flexible response to external challenges and seek help from worried global and regional friends to confront Al Qaeda and its local affiliates.
[Dawn] SOME 12 years or so ago, I was in Tangier, the lovely coastal city in Morocco, and went to pay my respects at the modest tomb of Ibn Battuta, the town's most famous son. Born there in 1304, he left for a pilgrimage to Makkah when he was 21.
Since then, he barely stopped travelling, covering around 75,000 miles by the time he died in 1368 or 1369. By far the most prodigious explorer of the Middle Ages, he visited China, much of South Asia, vast tracts of Africa, and south and east Europe, and left behind a complete record of his epic journeys.
Ibn Battuta passed through Timbuktu in 1352 when it was a small, bustling town. It had not then attained the importance it would a couple of centuries later as a major trading centre where camel trains passed through on their way from the west coast to many points in Africa.
In Mali, Ibn Battuta commented on the piety of the Moslems he encountered. Apparently, the mosques were so full that fathers would send their sons early to reserve a place for them for Friday prayers. Apart from being an important trading centre, Timbuktu was also a focal point of Islamic scholarship with three universities and 180 Koranic schools. Many stunning mosques were built there, as were imposing shrines to Sufi saints and other holy men.
Gradually, Timbuktu lost its importance to the point where its name became synonymous with a remote, almost mythical place. 'From here to Timbuktu' is an expression denoting a huge distance. Nevertheless, this did not prevent Dr A.Q. Khan, our very own nuclear proliferator, from visiting the now run-down town three times and apparently buying a hotel that he named after his wife, Hendrina.
Given its long history and striking architecture, it is no wonder that Timbuktu has been named a Unesco world heritage site. Sadly, this distinction has not stopped thugs of the Ansar Dine, or Defenders of the Faith, from destroying and damaging a number of ancient mosques and mausoleums.
Justifying their sacrilegious acts, an Ansar front man claimed that the design of the tombs was "idolatrous" as according to him, Islam prescribes about "the way and size in which tombs are built". This is news to me, but then I'm no Islamic scholar.
This wanton destruction of historically and religiously significant structures is reminiscent of the Taliban's demolition of the famous giant Buddha statues in Bamiyan. So outraged was the entire world at this criminal act of vandalism in early 2001 that even Moslem countries did not protest when the Taliban were attacked and sent packing later that year in the wake of 9/11.
Apart from their ignorance and brutality, the other thing the Taliban and the Ansar Dine have in common is their Wahabi/Salafi belief. This literalist Saudi tendency has seen the destruction of historically and religiously important buildings, including ancient tombs in Makkah and Madina. Entire historic sites have been bulldozed.
Curiously, most of the Moslem world has remained largely silent over this desecration. But none of this is new: the destruction of religious buildings has been going on in Soddy Arabia ...a kingdom taking up the bulk of the Arabian peninsula. Its primary economic activity involves exporting oil and soaking Islamic rubes on the annual hajj pilgrimage. The country supports a large number of princes in whatcha might call princely splendor. When the oil runs out the rest of the world is going to kick sand in their national face... for centuries. Irfan Ahmad, who is associated with the Centre for Islam in the Modern World at Australia's Monash University, writing in Issue 15 of Islamica Magazine (now sadly defunct) informs us:
"In 1802, an army led by the sons of Mohammed Ibn Abd al-Wahab (the founder of Wahabism) and Mohammed ibn Saud occupied Taif and began a bloody massacre. A year later, the forces occupied the holy city of Makkah. They executed a campaign of destruction in many sacred places and levelled all the existing domes, even those built over the well of Zamzam... In 1806, the Wahabi army occupied Madina. They did not leave any religious building, including mosques, without demolishing it..."
Wahabis/Salafists ...Salafists are ostentatiously devout Moslems who figure the ostentation of their piety gives them the right to tell others how to do it and to kill those who don't listen to them... and other fundamentalists draw inspiration from the mediaeval scholar Ibn Taymiyyah to rationalise the destruction of ancient religious buildings.
This quotation from Ibn Taymiyyah is deployed by them to defend their antipathy towards ancient holy sites: "The leaders of Islam agreed that it is not permitted to build the mausoleums over the graves. They cannot be considered mosques and praying over them is not permitted."
Presumably, if these fundamentalists could have their way, most of the world's historical, religious and architectural heritage would have been levelled by now. Pyramids, temples and churches that have stood for centuries would have gone the way of the Bamiyan Buddhas.
Mughal contributions to civilisation like the Taj Mahal, and Istanbul's Ottoman Blue Mosque, would have been razed by the likes of the Taliban and the Ansar Dine. The exquisite Moorish buildings in Spain would have been blown up or bulldozed if the Salafis had their way.
Unsurprisingly, these hordes have little to contribute to learning and culture: they know only to kill and destroy. Rather than preserving the past and respecting the dead, they campaign to erase every vestige of history from memory except their version of it.
Oddly, they claim to speak exclusively for a religion that enjoins its followers to seek knowledge from the far corners of the world. In their view, any Moslem who differs from their narrow vision of the faith is a non-believer and therefore 'wajib-ul-qatal', or deserving to be put to death. They have thus appointed themselves judge, jury and hangman.
The Moslem mantra is that these Islamic fascistiare a small minority, and their views and actions should not colour the world's opinion about Islam as a whole. But the truth is that even a tiny fraction of some 1.3 billion Moslems amounts to enough dangerous beturbanned goons to cause havoc around the world.
In places like north Mali, north Nigeria, Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan and large tracts of Pakistain, this cancer is spreading. Something all these areas have in common is a power vacuum that is being filled by jihad boy groups subscribing to the rigid, intolerant belief of Al Qaeda. Invariably, they follow the strict code of Salafism espoused by the Saudis.
Faced by these dangers, the Moslem world has opted for silence and supine inaction. In some cases, there is active if covert support from the state. Few raise their voices in protest. I suppose it's only a matter of time before Ibn Battuta's small mausoleum in Tangier is demolished, too.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/08/2012 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under: Global Jihad
#1
Couldn't we stop them by threatening to burn Korans if they destroy another religious site? This is an innovative approach I wish our leaders would try. We could use the mohamed cartoons to our benefit. Threaten these countries into behaving better, or else we'll commit large-scale blasphemy and turn the streets of Middle East into chaos.
Posted by: DJ Curtis C ||
07/08/2012 19:40 Comments ||
Top||
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 NGS on Navajo land in northern Arizona burns coal from the Kayenta Mine, which is co-owned by the Navajo and Hopi nations. The EPA is pondering whether all three units of the NGS should be required to install the "best available" emission-control technologies, perhaps costing more than $1.1 billion. More than 80 percent of the power plant's employees are Navajo, many of whom speak Navajo to help preserve the nation's culture. In 2007, the percentage of the Navajo Nation's population living in poverty was 36.8.
[Dawn] "LOCAL officials said the family of Fareeda had not informed them about the threats..." So reads a sentence from Dawn's report on the horrendous killing of a woman NGO worker in Jamrud. No one has as yet 
There is no doubt that Pakistain is in trouble. The world says that. Every Pak says that too. But the diagnoses of the two are different. That inclines Pakistain to disagree and take on the world for the wrong diagnosis. The world thinks Pakistain tolerates terrorism inside its territory and is either unwilling to counter it or lacks the capacity to do so. Pakistain thinks terrorism is caused by powers from outside (the US, India, Israel); therefore Pakistain has to fight these powers if possible with the help of its 'reformed' terrorists.
President Asif Ali 
SOME 12 years or so ago, I was in Tangier, the lovely coastal city in Morocco, and went to pay my respects at the modest tomb of Ibn Battuta, the town's most famous son. Born there in 1304, he left for a pilgrimage to Makkah when he was 21.
