#1
He's certainly correct in seeing Sunni Islam as ossified. He's also correct in noting that the Sunni/Shia fault line is world-shattering and critical. As to whether Shia Khomeiniism is more amenable to interpretation and scholarship, I'm not sure.
What is also clear is which side he's on. He's not on the side of the West. He might point us to some understandings of Iran that are useful, but we shouldn't ever make the mistake of thinking that he's one of us or that he's on our side.
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/23/2009 13:00 Comments ||
Top||
The shameful siege of Honduras continues. In the past few weeks, the United States has cut more than $30 million in non-humanitarian aid, suspended most visa services and sided with Venezuela, Cuba and other of Latin America's worst dictatorships in undermining democracy. Meanwhile, the people of Honduras are desperately trying to maintain their freedom and prevent the return of a regime that Washington is committed to forcing down their throats.
The United States rushed to the wrong side of this issue when former Honduran President Manuel Zelaya was ousted on June 28, and since then it has reinforced a bad policy. Rather than seek means of mitigating the crisis, the United States clings obdurately to demands that Mr. Zelaya be returned to power. The "San Jose process," a peace initiative brokered by Costa Rican President Oscar Arias that the United States supports, would place Mr. Zelaya in office to serve out the rest of his term, which ends in January. But the Honduran government - all of it, the president, Congress and the Supreme Court - has determined that Mr. Zelaya's ouster was a legal response to his illegal attempts to rig a referendum to establish himself as president for life. This scheme followed the model of Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez.
The United States has attacked Honduran autonomy with bullying tactics. Washington recently stood by as Honduras was hectored out of the United Nations Human Rights Council by Cuba and Nicaragua, and current Honduran President Roberto Micheletti said he would not attempt to travel to New York to attend the upcoming meeting of the U.N. General Assembly because his U.S. visa was revoked. All the while, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - who heads a government that is among the world's most odious human rights abusers - is being welcomed to the city to spread his message of hope and change.
The United States has a chance to make a diplomatic escape from this perverse policy. On Nov. 29, Honduras will hold its regularly scheduled presidential election, which is the one Mr. Zelaya was seeking to undermine. Term limits make him ineligible to run, so his current status should have nothing to do with the validity of the election. The central premise of the San Jose process - that Mr. Zelaya serve out the rest of his term - will be moot by January, when the new president is inaugurated. After the ballots are counted and a new president is elected, that would be a perfect opportunity to recognize the will of the Honduran people, declare the crisis over and move forward.
But offering no particular reason, the United States has decided not to recognize the outcome of the election. This not only is bad policy but is amateurish diplomacy. The November election and January inauguration are natural firebreaks that end any pretense Mr. Zelaya would have to continue his rule. Undermining the succession process will put relations with Honduras into free fall with no clear mechanism for resolution. The State Department said that "policy and strategy for engagement is not based on supporting any particular politician or individual," but this claim is hard to square with the facts.
Taking a stand against a constitutionally mandated, free and fair election is a statement from the Obama administration that Mr. Zelaya - the would-be autocrat - is the administration's man, right or wrong. The Honduran people be damned.
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/23/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Havn't been to central america, maybe its time to visit. Sounds fragil in Honduras.
By John Stossel
When I announced last week that I was leaving ABC for Fox, some readers complained about my "bias." I replied: "Every reporter has political beliefs. The difference is that I am upfront about mine."
Look at today's burning issue: President Obama's pledge to redesign 15 percent of the economy. Virtually every reporter calls his health care plan "reform." But dictionaries define reform as "improvement."
So before they present any evidence, reporters pronounce Obama's plan an improvement. Isn't that bias?
The New York Times took its bias to an absurd length. Its page-one story on the big anti-big-government rally in Washington, D.C., referred to "protests that began with an opposition to health care. ..."
Apparently, in the Times reporter's and editors' view, opponents of the Obama health care plan oppose health care itself. (The online article was later changed.)
Economic-policy reporters usually present the views of supporters of new regulations as objective and public-spirited. For a contrary view, at best they'll ask a Republican or a representative of the regulated business, who is portrayed as self-serving. (Republicans tend to offer a watered-down version of the Democrats' proposals.)
A recent Bloomberg report on President Obama's plans to rewrite financial regulations is typical: "Obama has proposed new regulations overseeing the systemic risk posed by large financial institutions." The reporter quoted White House economic adviser Lawrence Summers in support of the plan. Although there are plenty of reasons to doubt that regulators are competent at judging systemic risk, no skeptical economist was quoted. Readers are led to believe the program is perfectly feasible.
Most reporting on the "stimulus" package has the same flaw. Just to call it "stimulus" is to editorialize, since the idea that government spending can truly stimulate an economy is at best doubtful. Many good economists say it can't be done. After all, the money is taken from somewhere else. But the economists rarely are quoted.
In addition, reporters seem to think they've done their job if they merely describe the intentions behind the proposed "reform." But the burden of proof should be on the sponsors of regulation and spending. They should have to make a convincing case that their new rules are superior to the free market. Who cares about intentions?
Fuel-efficiency standards, intended to save gasoline, give us less crashworthy cars, so more people die. Subsidies to American farmers destroy Third World markets (http://tinyurl.com/l46rd4). Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac encouraged shaky subprime mortgages and helped cause the housing and financial turmoil.
The long list of bad results that have emerged from well-intended regulation ought to dim reporters' enthusiasm. But it hasn't.
I admit that my guiding political and economic philosophy -- libertarianism -- now shapes my reporting, in this way: It prompts me to ask questions that others don't ask.
I don't claim to be the expert. But some of my colleagues who write about business know nothing about economics. Many are comically hostile to profit -- they dismiss it as "greed" (although they bargain for the highest salaries possible).
On my former ABC blog, some people called me a biased "conservative."
"Your (sic) a shill anyways John. dont (sic) let the door hit you in the you know what."
I'm surprised that the self-described enemies of intolerance can't tolerate even one MSM reporter who doesn't share their statist premises. The interventionist state has been the status quo for generations, so I must be something other than "conservative." "Liberal" is what my philosophy used to be called. It's the statists who are the reactionaries.
#1
Fox is picking up a lot of talent. For a person who wants to be a journalist at the leading edge of news, it's a much better place to be than the traditional outlets.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
09/23/2009 10:21 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Libertarianism has a huge blind spot - no comprehension of the privileged position corporations hold and of the damage they can do. Oh, and government regulation is always bad and counterproductive.
#2
The current economic crisis is not a left-wing vs. right-wing issue except for ideologues who want to think that way. The level of rage seems to be rising as the electorate feels more and more pain and perceives that the politicians are out of touch with what's going on. I fear things will get much worse before they get better.
Commie is as commie does.
When it came to acting on behalf of peace in the 21st century, the Obama administration weighed "sphere of influence" against "sphere of security" and came down solidly on the side of the Russian czars.
Posted by: ed ||
09/23/2009 06:26 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
It is not hard to see why a standing ovation awaits the president at Turtle Bay. Obamas popularity at the UN boils down essentially to his willingness to downplay American global power. He is the first American president who has made an art form out of apologizing for the United States, which he has done on numerous occasions on foreign soil, from Strasbourg to Cairo. The Obama mantra appears to be ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do to atone for your country. This is a message that goes down very well in a world that is still seething with anti-Americanism. The UN loves wimpy Yanks.
#2
The UN loves Obama because Obama sees the UN as taking over the power vacuum created when he turns the US into an isolationist doctrine; "removing troops without preconditions" as well as hinting at a graft gift of money to the world government organization.
Reading through this transcript, that is, the transcript of the NEA getting funding partners on board to promote the Obama agenda
I was struck by two things. One was the aroma of self-intoxication. These bureaucrats and artists and activists are utterly besotted by the contemplation of their own virtue. They know what's good for the country, and what's good for you, and they're willing to devote themselves ceaselessly to making it happen.
The second thing that strikes one about this transcript is the aura of menace that floats just behind the talk of passion, pushing the president's agenda, connecting with "labor unions, progressive groups," etc., etc. As Yosi Sergant's pep talk suggests, these people regard legal obstacles not as boundaries to be observed but as impediments to be overcome by "tactics," a word that frequently appears in the transcript.
There is a German word for what we are witnessing at the NEA and elsewhere in the Obama administration's effort to push its agenda. It is Gleichschaltung. for more on the use of this term, read this
It means two things: first, bringing all aspects of life into conformity with a given political line. And second, as a prerequisite for realizing that goal, the obliteration or at least marginalization of all opposition.
Posted by: lord garth ||
09/23/2009 11:37 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Circa 1933-45: one of the most dangerous words in the German language - and one enforced not by ultra liberal university professors but by Gestapo.
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.
