A new survey released today by the Greater London Authority confirms that London's Muslim communities shares common values and concerns with the wider community, repudiating the image of conflicting values portrayed by certain sections of the media. This shows the importance of working with the Muslim community and its leadership in the struggle against criminality including terrorism. What? Red Ken ensured that only questions that distorted Muslims real views, were asked. Polls of UK Muslims consistently support separate sharia courts. One poll revealed that one out of every six Muslims, supported the 7-7 murder bombing campaign. Most oppose the existence of Israel, and support developing a nuclear balance of power between the Muslim tyrannies and the big powers. No Euro Muslim has ever been asked if they support "honor" murders and mutiliations.
IPSOS-MORI carried out a poll of attitudes among Muslims in London compared to the views of all Londoners.
Nearly all Muslim Londoners surveyed - 96 per cent - think that everyone should respect the law in Britain, virtually the same as the number of Londoners as a whole at 97 per cent. The overwhelming majority of Muslims polled, 89 per cent, believe that everyone in Britain should be free to live their lives as they want so long as they do not prevent others from doing the same again virtually identical to Londoners as a whole, where the figure was 88 per cent. Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, etc minorities in the Muslim tyrannies, are placed at the bottom of the social hierarchy. Pakistan is now 98% free of non-muslim minorities, and the exodus continues daily. While Leftislamos work for right to terrorize for Paleo, Khomeinis and Wahabis, NO Muslim in the West advocates on behalf of Islam's oppressed minorities. Meaning: they want rights here only so they will sometime be in the oppress the majority groups that currently respect their right to subvert Western liberties.
The overwhelming majority of Muslim respondents 94 per cent also believe that everyone in Britain should have equal opportunities, as does 92 per cent of Londoners as a whole.
Posted by: McZoid ||
11/15/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under: Global Jihad
#1
Scroll down in the article for a copy of the poll. Again, the wrong questions are asked because they pretend that Muslim thinking is close to the general consensus.
Nicolas Sarkozy's star turn in America last week didn't escape notice in London, which used to pride itself on the "special relationship."
Of late, the friendship has felt less than special. On becoming Prime Minister this summer, Gordon Brown threw a few bones to the Harold Pinter gallery. He brought the America-skeptic Mark Malloch Brown from the U.N. to serve in his cabinet. In his first meeting with President Bush, the PM was all straight talk, making a point to strike a contrast with the chumminess on display whenever Tony Blair dropped by Camp David. Little changed on policy, but the symbolism and body language were cool. And, it turns out, out of step with the new Continental zeitgeist.
In France "Sarkozy l'Américain" went from a derisive nickname to a compliment in the six months since his election. Speaking openly of his admiration for the U.S., the new President works closely with Washington on Iran, Kosovo and other issues. He vacationed in New Hampshire this summer. His moving address to a joint session of Congress last week sealed the rapprochement. Then this weekend, Chancellor Angela Merkel paid the first visit by a German Chancellor to the Bush ranch in Crawford to talk about Iran's nuclear program.
So Monday night, in his first major speech on foreign policy since moving into 10 Downing Street, Mr. Brown sought to out-Sarkozy the Frenchman. "It is no secret that I am a lifelong admirer of America," he said in London. "I have no truck with anti-Americanism in Britain or elsewhere in Europe. I believe that our ties with America -- founded on values we share -- constitute our most important bilateral relationship." In noting the recent pro-U.S. tilt across the Channel, Mr. Brown said, "It is good for Britain, for Europe and for the wider world that today France and Germany and the European Union are building strong relationships with America."
Whether the Prime Minister's sudden effusiveness about the Yanks was prompted by the Sarkozy visit doesn't matter. But his speech recognized that the action today in Europe is in France and Germany. Paris and Berlin buried disagreements over the Iraq war and reached out to Washington on the strategic challenges faced by the trans-Atlantic alliance. London feels left out.
In the meantime, one can marvel at the sight, unimaginable this time last year, of a new generation of European leaders clamoring to make friends with America.
(via Freep)
Well I am sitting here seeing what is totally worthless to watch on HBO this evening and what pops up on HDNM(subscription hi def)but "Redacted" the new Brian DePalma - Mark Cuban agitprop movie.
Scheduled for 9:15 pm or so CST. I won't be watching. But it unbelievable the effort that Hollywood will go to in order to get its anti-American trash before an audience. Bet O'Reilly is not aware of this preemptive showing as he has been all over Cuban and DePalma for this cinematic abortion for some time now. I am cancelling Direct TV myself over this deal.
Posted by: Anonymoose ||
11/15/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under: Global Jihad
#1
Actually, I think all of Cuban's movies get (near?) simultaneous release on his HD channel.
#2
Hollyweird's new strategy to get round those financial roadblocks, like theaters? Well, it would remove the accounting problems when calculating kickbacks the 'cut of the action' per screening.
#3
While recognizing the movie is dangerous propaganda, I'm getting perverse pleasure in watching Hollywood slit its own throat. Just like the NYT, etc., Hollywood moguls seem intent on self-destructing. It's Darwin at his personal best.
#6
It would be far more fun if they'd start executing these twits for treason. Hey, you work for the enemy, you should pay the price. No matter who you are.
Posted by: DanNY ||
11/15/2007 13:42 Comments ||
Top||
#11
It's late to be posting this.... but I'm watching the Spuns (my favorite team) in Dallas. When the game started, there were all these green t-shirts on folks. Couldn't figure what was with the green.
Then, TNT showed, before the game, the Mav's dedication to supporting the troops -- they had military folks in cammo, handing out the green t-shirt with a big D on the front and some words on the back --- in Defense of supporting the troops.
A cover for Cuban -- and I would have mixed emotion about it.... but, these were US military handing out the t-shirts. ... and well, I probably would have put it on --
Cuban covering his *ss...... Sheezzzz.. Plus, O'Reilly was calling on Dallas folks to hold signs against Cuban and his movie.
An interesting read. At first blush I disagree with parts, but only parts, of this essay. While we need to understand terrorism, the tone and tenor comes suspiciously close to the 'why do they hate us' mentality. I don't think that is what Dr. Wheelan means, but let's be clear, a clear, dry, gimlet-eye is needed to 'understand' terrorism, not hand-wringing.
And while Dr. Wheelan correctly notes that Islam is not the only religion susceptible to the lure of terrorism, he needs to account for the fact that the large majority of terrorist acts these days are being committed by Muslims. We at Rantburg joke about the Unitarians and Esquimaux, but the joke has bite: there are precious few Lutheran and Buddhist terrorists these days. To understand terrorism we need to take into account the world view of terrorists, and religion surely informs and influences that to a substantial degree. While there are many who claim (postulate, at least) the existence of the 'moderate Muslim', a working knowledge of the Qur'an makes clear that many sections of that book appear to justify terrorism in the modern world. A counter-terrorist expert who fails to account for that will miss a key part in formulating his/her strategy.
And while terrorists spring forth from countries with a legacy of political repression, they also are found in liberal democracies: witness groups such as the Red Army faction and the Baidar-Meinhof gang from the 1970s and 1980s. Political repression may indeed lead people who otherwise would work within the system to commit terrorist acts: but a terrorist in a liberal democracy may believe that he/she is being oppressed simply because said democracy hasn't acknowledged the rightness of their pet cause. Further, some societies greatly repress their people without generating a terrorist response: for example, North Korea. Authoritarian government may be one factor that stirs the pot but it isn't solely responsible for creating a terrorist (and I think Dr. Wheelan would acknowledge that point).
Dr. Wheelan makes the point that, essentially, what we have to fear about terrorism is fear itself: that it is our over-reaction that allows the terrorst to succeed. There's a fair amount of truth to that, insofar as terrorist acts are, in general, pinpricks on the whole of society. He points out, and perhaps it's true at a certain level, that even 9/11 didn't cause lasting harm to the U.S., despite 3,000+ dead and hundreds of billions of dollars of economic damage. However, terrorists inevitably look to perform ever-more damaging acts. It's the whole issue of an 'encore', as in, how do you top what ugly act you committed last time? That leads to the ultimate problem, that being a terrorist who no longer acts locally (bombs, IEDs, assasinations) but globally with weapons of mass destruction. While 'over-reacting' by limiting our own civil liberties still furthers the terrorists' cause, one can no longer dismiss their actions as 'pinpricks'. Proportionality demands a far greater response from us when confronted with terrorists who have both the means and the will to act globally.
But let's also acknowledge what Dr. Wheelan (and Dr. Krueger) get right: terrorists, at least those above the level of cannon-fodder, are neither stupid nor poor, they are usually well educated (formally or on the street), and they usually start locally, however grandiose their schemes. For them to be successful, society must over-react to them by repressing the population as a whole, by limiting our own liberties instead of those enjoyed by the terrorists. That's why the correct response for the United States in dealing with world terrorism is not hunkering down at home with more laws, more police, and more 'homeland security' that begins to impinge on our own freedoms. It's to find and kill the terrorists in their own lands and nests. Dr. Wheelan and Dr. Krueger offer thoughts and tools that could be put to good use in the anti-terror effort.
by Charles Wheelan, Ph.D.
I settled into my seat for a flight a few days ago from Chicago to Washington, D.C., and opened my book: "What Makes a Terrorist." I now recognize that this probably wasn't the best choice of reading material for a crowded plane.
But it is a good read. The author, Princeton economist Alan Krueger, has written an accessible and interesting book on the causes of terrorism. (Disclosure: Krueger was my statistics professor in graduate school; I did badly in the class, which is why I now happily write articles like this that involve no math.)
Number-Crunching the Threats
The full title of Krueger's book is "What Makes a Terrorist: Economics and the Roots of Terrorism." His work (here and elsewhere) is a nice example of how economics can be used to examine issues far beyond interest rates and stock prices. After all, the point of economics is to explain why individuals and organizations do what they do, including people who blow things up.
More important, the findings outlined in the book provide some intellectual traction in the battle against terrorism. Krueger draws conclusions based on an array of data gathered on terrorist attacks around the world, including information on the terrorists, their country of origin, and the country targeted in the attack.
Experts need to study such data for the same reason that epidemiologists study public health data -- the findings often suggest a strategy for confronting a threat, whether it's heart attacks or terrorist attacks. Statistical analysis allows researchers to isolate the effects of certain factors, such as smoking in a public health context or religion as it might relate to terrorism. (I did well enough in Krueger's class to appreciate the importance of this kind of statistical analysis, if not necessarily well enough to do it competently.)
So what makes a terrorist? Here are Krueger's big findings.
Wealth, Education, and Terror
1. Terrorists are neither desperately poor, nor poorly educated.
Instead, "terrorists tend to be drawn from well-educated, middle-class or high-income families." (The 9/11 Commission came to the same conclusion.) But why?
Krueger hypothesizes that since terrorists are motivated by political goals, the more educated and affluent have a greater stake in changing outcomes. He draws a parallel to voting: "Having a high opportunity cost of time -- resulting, say, from a high-paying job and a good education -- should discourage people from voting, yet it is precisely those with a high opportunity cost of time who tend to vote. Why? Because they care about influencing the outcome and consider themselves sufficiently well-informed to want to express their opinions."
I would offer a complementary explanation, which is that affluent and educated citizens are more likely to be rankled by political repression, which appears to be a strong causal factor for terrorism. The citizens with the most stake in a society -- the educated and the affluent -- are bothered most when a newspaper is banned or opposition politicians are jailed. Who would take greatest offense in the United States if the government banned Fox News or NPR? Not the homeless.
Krueger, ever the labor economist, also points out a somewhat macabre explanation for well-educated terrorists: Terror organizations accept the most capable volunteers -- just like any other organization that cares about its success. The bunglers get turned away.
No Political Safety Valve
2. Political repression in a country is consistently associated with a higher level of terrorist activity.
This includes the suppression of freedom of expression, freedom to assemble, and other civil liberties and political rights. This should be fairly intuitive; when these rights are curtailed, the steam has no way to escape the pot. Krueger writes, "When nonviolent means of protest are curtailed, malcontents appear to be more likely to turn to terrorist tactics."
To my mind, this finding presents the greatest dilemma for U.S. policymakers. Some of the governments that have been most helpful to the United States in terms of fighting extremist groups, namely Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, have also ruthlessly cracked down on domestic political freedoms. Thus, these governments are simultaneously fighting terrorists while breeding new ones.
Think Globally, Terrorize Locally
3. Like politics, most terrorist attacks are local.
The Sept. 11, 2001, attacks are an anomaly in this respect. The role that proximity plays can be observed based on the national origin of the foreign insurgents captured in Iraq. When Krueger controls for other variables related to the home countries of the foreign insurgents -- such as GDP and predominant religion -- being from the neighborhood turns out to matter a lot.
There are a host of possible explanations for this. Citizens from neighboring countries may have a greater stake in the Iraqi outcome. Or it may be easier for them to blend in. Or it may simply be easier (and cheaper) for them to get there. Whatever the reason, the data show that "distance seems to be a significant barrier to terrorism."
How Region and Religion Figure
4. Countries that are occupying all or part of another country are more likely to be subject to a terrorist attack. And countries that are occupied are more likely to be the origin of an attack.
Again, this is fairly intuitive, but it has significant implications for foreign policy, in the United States and elsewhere. It strikes me that there's a parallel with domestic repression: If we send forces somewhere to crack down on terrorists, we may be simultaneously creating the circumstances that promote such terrorism in the first place.
5. It's not a Muslim thing.
Countries with a high proportion of Muslims aren't significantly more likely to be the origin of terrorist attacks than countries with a high percentage of some other religion, once civil liberties are taken into account. In fact, international terrorism was less likely to occur between pairs of countries with different predominant religious groups.
Krueger writes, "My interpretation of these results is that religious differences are among the many potential sources of the grievances that lead to terrorism. They are not the only reason for such grievances, and such grievances are not specific to any one religion. Although the world's attention is currently focused on Islamic terrorist organizations, they are by no means the only source of terrorism."
Damage Done
6. The direct impacts of terrorist attacks are not huge.
This isn't meant to diminish the suffering of those directly affected by 9/11 or any other such attack; it's meant to put the scope of the attacks in perspective. The number of people killed in car accidents in 2001 was 10 times the number of people killed by terrorists (my observation, not Krueger's).
Krueger does make the case that economic damage caused by 9/11 was modest given the size and diversity of the U.S. economy. Even the psychological impact dissipated relatively quickly.
His point is that terrorism can only succeed by sowing fear and overreaction, not by destroying things and killing people. He posits that terrorists strike democratic countries more than autocratic regimes because public reaction matters more in open societies. For example, he points to evidence that terrorism has affected electoral outcomes in Spain, Israel, and the United States.
"What Makes a Terrorist" includes a wonderful chart showing the relative risk of dying from assorted causes. The lifetime risk of dying in a motor vehicle accident for the U.S. population is 1 in 88. The lifetime risk for dying of suicide is 1 in 120. The lifetime risk for dying in a terrorist attack is 1 in 69,000, which is significantly less than the risk of dying from a lightning strike. (To be fair, the average American is far more likely to die at the hands of a terrorist than from a shark attack; that lifetime risk is 1 in 3,700,000.)
The point is that terrorist attacks succeed because of the terror, not the attack. We should respond with that in mind.
The Most Reliable Weapon
Krueger's work and other studies like it have obvious limitations, beginning with the challenge of defining terrorism. The data are inherently hard to collect; the interpretation leaves a lot of room for ambiguity and interpretation. For example, should an attack on a McDonald's in Pakistan be treated as an attack on Pakistan or on the United States?
Still, the approach is spot on. Fighting terrorism begins by understanding it.
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/15/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[19 views]
Top|| File under: Global Jihad
#1
"The direct impact of terror attacks are not huge" > neither is GLOBAL CO2 ala GLOBAL WARMING [UNO Report - LUCIANNE/WND].
#2
I recall that one of the UBL or Zawahiri types saying that they were going to prove the US was no different than anyone else by forcing them to enact legislation that restricted liberties in reaction to their terrorist attacks, thereby making the US hypocritical.
I'd say the terrorist leadership is explicitly aware of this and probably try to make it come to pass whenever presented the opportunity because it seems to be a point of pride for their culture and would aid in recruitment and indoctrination.
Posted by: Thomas Woof ||
11/15/2007 8:58 Comments ||
Top||
#6
We need to be VERY careful with this. While it is an excellent point that we should not allow the WOT to restrict liberties, we should also realize that our greatest weakness (also our greatest strength) is liberty.
What we need to do to survive is to restrict the liberty of those who wish to kill others. The trick is how to do it without restricting it for those who do not. It is not a simple task and in the end, the terrorists may indeed have found our Achilles heel.
#7
That's why the correct response for the United States in dealing with world terrorism is ... to find and kill the terrorists in their own lands and nests.
This remains the bottom line. The longer we delay in implementing this policy, the larger the number of collateral Muslims deaths that will accompany each terrorist hit. The math is dreadfully simple and deadly serious.
#8
That's why the correct response for the United States in dealing with world terrorism is not hunkering down at home with more laws, more police, and more 'homeland security' that begins to impinge on our own freedoms. It's to find and kill the terrorists in their own lands and nests.
That's one way to look at it. Another is that it don't matter how many terrorists you kill in Iraq etc..., as long as CAIR gets its own way inside USA.
Has the Al Dura trial had its Rosemary Woods missing tapes moment? It certainly sounds that way. PJMs Nidra Poller has the latest on the ongoing trial in Paris over what has been called The Mother of All Fauxtography. Full report will follow shortly.
By Nidra Poller
The Mohammed Al-Dura drama reached a climax as France 2s auteur, who had up till now not appeared in court, took the stand.
Charles Enderlin came to court personally today to defend the images shot by his trusted cameraman Talal Abu Rahma at Netzarim Junction in the Gaza Strip on September 30, 2000. The cameraman had declared under oath that he filmed 27 minutes of the ordeal of Mohamed al Dura and his father Jamal, pinned down by Israeli gunfire. France 2 turned over to the court a CDRom certified as an authentic copy of the raw footage, of a total duration of 18 minutes. Despite those statements the pertinent al Dura scenes contained in the rushes lasted one short minute. Nothing more.
The remaining footage, 17 minutes, was consistent with what was already known about that day at the Junction: staged battle scenesout of range of the Israeli positionwith instant ambulance evacuations, alternating with images of men and boys attacking the Israeli position with stones, firebombs, and burning tires.
An overflow crowd waited for more than an hour outside the courtroom and dozens were left outside. Those who were lucky enough to get in were treated to a demonstration of Charles Enderlins defense strategy. Did Enderlins testimony convince the court despite its lack of corroboration by the rushes? He did not convince this correspondent who came away with greater doubts than ever about France 2s film.
More reactions to the Enderlins testimony
Richard Landes: Today Charles Enderlin presented in court the rushes of Talal abu Rahmah which the Judge had requested from him. And he presented an edited version in which he took out at least three minutes, and several scenes that I distinctly remember seeing. In the United States thats called tampering with evidence, obstruction of justice, and perjury. In France, well find out what its called.
Melanie Phillips: Enderlin offered only a vague, rambling and unconvincing explanation of why he had only produced 18 minutes of footage rather than the 27 he claimed to have received from his cameraman in Gaza (Enderlin himself was not in Gaza when these events occurred).
The formation of a so called political council for Iraqi resistance was met by different reactions from the public and the politicians who are now divided into proponents and opponents. Whereas the Accord Front called for mediation between the council and the government some parties in the UIA see that the council cannot be negotiated with and declared it a continuation of the former regime.
What is important in my opinion regarding this development and aside from whether to negotiate with it or not, is the very announcement of forming this new political entity.
It consists of remnants of the former regime and it had led the violent campaign against the change and now its leaders announce the transformation into a political entity seeking negotiations with the government. This represents an admission of the failure of the insurgency. The statement made was dignified with a triumphant tone but this is not the Baath we know. We never saw the Baath triumphant and seeking negotiations at the same time. The former regime never recognized the idea of negotiations and peaceful settlements and this is exactly what led the country to numerous conflicts with the neighbors or with inside adversaries.
Saddam accepted dialogue and negotiations only after he had met defeat. Power always came first in the ideology of the Baath and the cruelty with which Saddam oppressed his domestic adversaries reminds us that searching for negotiations means that the regime, or those who represent its way of thinking, are incapable of sustaining meaningful resistance.
The call for negotiations reflects the failure of the Baath's military option. This failure can be attributed to a number of reasons, the most significant of which is the determination of the Iraqi people and American administration to continue the march in spite of the pain involved in doing so. It became evident with time for the "resistance" that for the average Iraqis, going back to totalitarian rule is not an option and that an American pullout is not visible in the horizon.
Add to that the growing split between the two main current wings of the Baath; the more Islamist one led by Izzat Dori and the secular nationalist one led by Mahmoud Younis al-Ahmed and the deep conflict of interests between al-Qaeda and several Sunni militant groups. More important are the blows the joint troops dealt al-Qaeda and other extremists. For a long time the figures seemed inconclusive but now it seems obvious that the cumulative effect of their losses has made them hold the white flag.
Some of the other factors we can add are Saddam's execution and the legal proceedings taken against the leaders of the insurgency abroad. These have been choking them, especially those who remained active. Like we said before, the rope around Saddam's neck left scars on many other necks.
On the other hand, the rise of rational political and popular tribal Sunni leaderships, who are seen as heroes in the Iraqi west, caused the old "stars" to fade out. In fact the new leaderships seem to be more capable of leading the populace in the provinces where the insurgency was dominant even more efficiently than the Baath was.
The incremental building of a nation and the simultaneous prelude for the contraction of an insurgency were not easy to see through the smoke of battle, but now things have changed and the results will be clear.
Of course the challenges are still great, yet the defeat of al-Qaeda and the fall of the insurgency tell us clear and loud that determination can and will defeat the rest of the enemies.
#2
This Iraqi blogger gets it right. Anything apart from bluster and aggression represents defeat for the Ba'ath and their ilk. I'd still prefer that they resist and continue to be killed, and that this be quite visible to all local parties. Common sense and history mean that the longer term interest of all concerned is best served by the maximum elimination of anyone of like mind, and the demoralization of their sympathizers. Eggs and omelettes, if you will.
Seriously, I think that flypaper was a brilliant strategery and that we need jihadis (and their fascist asociates/ilk) with their target symbol painted in bright colors.
whatever your views of macro economics, I think this applies here. Killing a few more baathists may marginally help the long run prospects for real democracy in Iraq, but the more important issue for the US GWOT now is gaining an acceptable end point in Iraq, shifting military resources where they can do more good, and ending the political (domestic and international) hemmorage Iraq is causing to support for the global struggle. What that means is that for a large portion of Baathists to come in from the cold is a good thing for us.
#6
Spook,
I would argue it is all intentional. Brings them power they think of it shames the Republicans and their brains ain't big enough to realize it also hurts the US, and them.
I am not insane! Bush laughed at me and made jokes but I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt and with... geometric logic... that a duplicate key to the Palm Beach ballot boxes DID exist, and I'd have produced that key if the Supreme Court hadn't of ruled like it did.
And another thing! You f------ f---tard Ref---liKKKans keep calling us "foul-mouthed." That's a g--d--- lie, you b------s! I will f------ beat the s--- out of any son of a b---- mother-f------ Ref---liKKKan who calls me foul-mouthed!
And don't get me started on your homophobia, you faggots!
[/span]
Posted by: Mike ||
11/15/2007 14:50 Comments ||
Top||
#2
ROLF!! Mike you you you made me spray my monitor!! LOL!
/or maybe it waz Bushe's fault
Posted by: Red Dawg ||
11/15/2007 16:58 Comments ||
Top||
#1
Fjordman, a hint, it's hardly the first time in history what a civilization collapses. I suggest Toynbee & Gibbon rather than endlessly digging into minutiae of the recent European history.
TMQ is a smart, highly entertaining weekly column about football--but as you can see, it also includes other subjects.
Please keep in mind as you read the following that Easterbrook is politically to the left of center.
Those Hollywood Searchlights Around Gore's Home Sure Eat Power: Gore wasn't the first quack to win the Nobel Peace Prize, and history suggests he will not be the last. Gore spent eight years in the White House, and in that time took no meaningful action regarding greenhouse gases. The Clinton-Gore administration did not raise fuel economy standards for cars and trucks or propose domestic carbon trading. Though Clinton and Gore made a great show of praising the Kyoto Protocol, they refused even to submit the treaty to the Senate for consideration, let alone push for ratification. During his 2000 run for the presidency, Gore said little about climate change or binding global-warming reforms. In the White House and during his presidential campaign, Gore advocated no consequential action regarding greenhouse gases; then, there was a political cost attached. Once Gore was out of power and global-warming proposals no longer carried a political cost -- indeed, could be used for self-promotion -- suddenly Gore discovered his intense desire to demand that other leaders do what he had not! It is a triumph of postmodernism that Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize for no specific accomplishment other than making a movie of self-praise. Gore caused no peace nor led any reconciliation of belligerent parties nor performed any service to the dispossessed, the achievements the Peace Prize was created to honor. All Gore did was promote himself from Hollywood, and for this, he gets a Nobel. Very postmodern. . . .
An astonishing measure of how out-of-touch the Norwegian Nobel Committee seems is that it gave a prize to Gore for hectoring others about energy consumption in the same year it was revealed that Gore, at his home, uses 20 times the national power average. Gore's extraordinary power waste equates to about 377,000 pounds of greenhouse gases annually, or about 20 Hummer Years worth of global warming pollution. (A Hummer Year, TMQ's metric of environmental hypocrisy, is the amount of carbon dioxide emitted in a typical year of driving a Hummer.) When his utility bill made the news -- though apparently not in Oslo -- Gore responded by saying he buys carbon offsets. That takes you back to the offset problem: All offsets do is prevent greenhouse gas accumulation from increasing. If you really believe there will be a global calamity unless greenhouse gas emissions are reduced 80 percent, as Gore told the Live Earth crowd, you would buy offsets and cut your own energy use. Instead, Gore flies around in fossil-fuel-intensive jet aircraft telling others: Do as I say, not as I do!
After news of Gore's personal energy consumption broke, Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider told The Associated Press the utility bill was justified because "Al and Tipper both work out of their home." This raises the question -- what kind of work are they doing? Perhaps reanimating Frankenstein; in Frankenstein movies, there is always a lot of electricity crackling wastefully about. Here are other possible reasons the Gores' home requires so much energy:
Gore is building a time machine to return to Palm Beach, Fla., in October 2000.
The former vice president is doing everything he personally can to cause global warming, so he can claim is predictions came true.
Gore is growing marijuana in his basement. [Note from the corporate legal department: This is strictly a joke, ESPN is not accusing Al Gore of growing marijuana. We stand by our allegation that he is a sinister kingpin of international rare-bird smuggling.]
Members of Gore's species require high power levels to maintain human form.
Al and Tipper don't just leave the lights on when they make out, they leave the lights on all over the house.
Posted by: Mike ||
11/15/2007 07:07 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11 views]
Top|| File under:
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.
Muslim attitudes - The Real Story
