Clint Eastwood folds his gangly frame behind a clifftop table at the Hotel Du Cap, a few miles up the coast from Cannes, sighs deeply, and squints out over the Mediterranean. "Has he ever studied the history?" he asks, in that familiar near-whisper.
The "he" is Spike Lee, and the reason Eastwood is asking is because of something Lee had said about Eastwood's Iwo Jima movie Flags of Our Fathers, while promoting his own war movie, Miracle at St Anna, about a black US unit in the second world war. Lee had noted the lack of African-Americans in Eastwood's movie and told reporters: "That was his version. The negro version did not exist."
Eastwood has no time for Lee's gripes. "He was complaining when I did Bird [the 1988 biopic of Charlie Parker]. Why would a white guy be doing that? I was the only guy who made it, that's why. He could have gone ahead and made it. Instead he was making something else." As for Flags of Our Fathers, he says, yes, there was a small detachment of black troops on Iwo Jima as a part of a munitions company, "but they didn't raise the flag. The story is Flags of Our Fathers, the famous flag-raising picture, and they didn't do that. If I go ahead and put an African-American actor in there, people'd go, 'This guy's lost his mind.' I mean, it's not accurate."
Continued on Page 49
#1
Spike's street cred of playing out his own black racism plays to a smaller and smaller audience. Even Obama has grasp the limitations of that game. Eastwood candor should be one of those moments that some people need to take notice that the game is about up. They won't because they believe it gives them power over others and power is a very seductive habit once experienced.
#5
Nice work Clint - I've been a fan for almost 30 yrs. F*ck spike lee - what a history retard - just another big mouthed race baiter and allround sh*thead....BTW - Mo betta blues fairly sucked and do the right thing was overated crap.
#6
In 2005, he vowed he'd kill Michael Moore if the documentarian ever showed up at his house, the way he had doorstepped Charlton Heston in Bowling for Columbine.
#9
Glenmore - I picked up Rowdy Yates via Blues Brother movie hat tip when I was about 8 yrs old (I'm mid 30s now). remember the Raw hide song at Bob's country bunker? They mention Rowdy Yates.
Nushin Arbabzadah
"I pray night and day that America will destroy the Taliban," said Fatima Syed, a woman who had lost her husband in a Taliban massacre. That was in 2001 and seven years later it's clear her prayers have not been heard. Nato has failed to pacify Afghanistan and the Taliban are still fighting. To add insult to injury, they may soon even become salonfähig - socially acceptable at the tea parties of Kabul. This is because the view that talking to the Taliban is the only way to establish peace has become increasingly popular inside and outside Afghanistan, albeit only among the politicians.
People like Fatima Syed have not been asked for their view but they're likely to agree with Kamran Mirhazar, the editor-in-chief of the Kabulpress website. Mirhazar says co-opting the Taliban would be the natural conclusion of the appeasement process which began with the return to power of the war criminals of the last 30 years. After all, he says, what are the Taliban but the final missing piece in the government's colourful collection of warlords?
Be that as it may, everyone - from Karzai to party leaders like Ahmad Shah Ahmadzai - seems ready to negotiate, what's stopping the talks? According to Mullah Zaif, ex-Taliban ambassador to Pakistan, it's the foreign troops. In a recent interview with Quqnoos news website, Zaif said: "As long as the foreign troops are here, negotiations with the government will be difficult."
Later, during a BBC discussion programme, he elaborated, saying the Taliban claim foreigners operate scot-free in Afghanistan and that you can't trust a government that lets this happen. Reading between the lines, this means that the Taliban fear that if they enter into negotiations, there'll be no guarantee that Nato will stop bombing them. This is because Karzai has no control over the troops and they can't be held accountable for their actions in Afghanistan. In the Taliban's view, this is a serious risk and as long as the risk persists, holding talks is going to be a challenge.
Mullah Zaeef held senior posts during the Taliban regime and was envoy to Pakistan when the US attacked Afghanistan in 2001. The Pakistanis later handed Zaif over to the US and he spent four years in Guantánamo. Though he is no longer a Taliban member, many see him as an unofficial mediator between the government and the Taliban. If this is true, then his statement above should be taken seriously because it indicates a shift in Taliban policy. In the past, the Taliban's response to offers of peace talks has always been the same: the "crusaders" must go and so must their "stooge", Karzai. But this statement seems to suggest that the Taliban have changed their stance and that Karzai is no longer a problem. So can we expect to see Nato troops packing up to go home because there'll be peace with the Taliban?
No, not if you listen to Mullah Ibrahim, a Taliban commander in Helmand province. According to him, there's still another impediment to talks: the mujahideen leaders of the Northern Alliance. In a recent interview, he said: "The government lacks the required mandate to start negotiating with the Taliban. Divisions within the government and the presence of Northern Alliance leaders in the government have prevented the start of negotiations. That's why the Taliban have no choice but to carry on fighting."
In other words, the Taliban fight because they have no alternative. It's a-man-has-to-do-what-a-man-has-to-do scenario and the Pashtun code of honour requires them to fight. The reason is simple. When the US attacked Afghanistan in 2001, it doubly dishonoured the Taliban. The first dishonour was that it attacked them without providing evidence of Bin Ladin's involvement in 9/11. The second was when the US helped the return to power of the Taliban's enemies the mujahideen leaders whose civil war had paved the way for the rise of the Taliban. It's an often forgotten detail that the Taliban movement was a response to mujahideen corruption and that Karzai, like many other disenchanted mujahideen, was an early supporter of the Taliban, and makes no secret of it. To refresh the reader's memory about the Taliban's view of the mujahideen leaders, here is what the BBC said when Kabul fell to the Taliban in September 1996:
Ousted President Burhanuddin Rabbani, his prime minister and his military chief are being hunted by the radical Islamic group who branded them "national criminals".
Needless to say, the "national criminals" are back in power and so if you're a sincere Talib you have no choice but to fight on.
If Mullah Ibrahim is right that the Northern Alliance is a serious problem for the Taliban, then the fighting will go on for the foreseeable future. That's why many suspect that if Nato leaves now the fighting will turn into another civil war. But this would not be a simple return to 1992 because now there are additional players in government to consider, including former communists, royalists and former exiles from the west. Iran, Russia and Pakistan have also become bolder in their policy towards Afghanistan than they were in the 1990s. Needless to say, a full-blown civil war is far worse than the current scenario and so some Afghan commentators suggest that Nato must stay for as long as it takes to pacify the country.
To go back to Mullah Ibrahim's view that they are fighting an honourable war, the Taliban's behaviour does not always reflect this attitude in a clear or coherent manner. For example, their leader, Mullah Omar, recently asked "the mujahideen" to join the Taliban in the struggle against the government. If the Taliban have a problem with the mujahideen, then why does their leader ask them to join the Taliban? There is an explanation for this contradictory behaviour. Mullah Omar's invitation could be an attempt to divide Karzai's administration along ethnic lines in response to Karzai's efforts to split the Taliban into moderates and hardliners. Karzai has repeatedly said that there are two types of Taliban. The first are brain-washed youths and those who fight for money. To use Karzai's phrase, these are "the sons of the Afghan soil" and reconciliation with them is possible. The second are the ideological extremists with links to al-Qaida. Critics, like the young Afghan intellectuals in charge of the Omid-e Vatan website, say negotiating with the latter would hammer the final nail in the coffin of Afghan democracy. Karzai is conveniently vague about exactly who he plans to talk to, though sometimes he explicitly mentions the name of Mullah Omar.
Politicians like Ahmad Shah Ahmadzai believe that whatever Karzai's choice might be regarding his negotiation partners, his opinion is inconsequential. In a recent interview with Radio France's Dari service, Ahmadzai said that in his view negotiations depend on two parties alone: the US and the Taliban. When asked if he supported negotiations, he said: "Yes, yes, I do, but it's not up to me." (Hats off to Ahmadzai! Such modesty is rare among Afghan politicians.) If he's right, then the future of talks depends on whether America is ready to negotiate with urm what was that word again? "Terrorists". Some commentators believe that Mullah Omar's name has already been crossed off the US terrorist list in preparation for precisely this.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/07/2008 17:06 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under: Taliban
#1
Typical Guardian fare: a major error of fact or logic in every single paragraph... and the writer has what appears to be a Persian name.
After 15 years of mutual enmity, conservatives have from time to time been saying nice things about Senator Hillary Clinton. Partly this was because many of us were enjoying the spectacle (and favoring the consequences) of a protracted and bitter fight between two liberal Democrats. Partly it was because we thought she would be a steadier hand as president than Senator Barack Obama would be, with more hawkish instincts and greater political realism. Partly it was because the liberal intelligentsia had turned on the Clintons with such hysteria once they no longer advanced its interests.
It was poetic justice for the Clintons. They had spent years subordinating truth, decency, and the nation itself to their own interests most spectacularly during the impeachment scandal of 1998, a yearlong drama that was entirely in the Clintons power to spare us. In 2008, liberals professed shock that the Clintons might be willing to subordinate the interests of the Democratic party to their own as well. It was poetic justice for them, as well. Irony alert: MoveOn.org, originally formed to save Bill Clinton from impeachment, became one of Hillary's most bitter and vicious foes.
In a remarkable political year one of the most remarkable developments has been the revelation that the Clintons never changed nor mastered their partys screwy primary rules. We will not pretend to regret the resultant temporary exit of the Clintons from presidential politics, which indeed we hope will be permanent. Clintonism as a political style was mostly noxious. (Since we are in a real war, neither campaign will have a self-described war room this time.) But it made its bows to the Right on trade, on taxes, on foreign policy, even on social issues.
Obama pats us on the head he understands our position, he says and presses forward with an undiluted liberal agenda. The only thing worse than Clintonism may be what replaces it.
Posted by: Mike ||
06/07/2008 16:02 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
IMO, unless McCain wins: which seems unlikely---the man can't lie or pretend even a little bit, we all will be weeping better tears for Hillary.
#2
McCain's victory is not unlikely. They're pretty even at the moment if you make a rational assessment of the electoral college, which still selects the president. What you read in the press reflects what is happening on the coasts, not what is happening in America. The election will be decided, imho, by who makes the last gaffe.
#3
The main election is still a long, long way off. McCain has a good shot of winning the election if he keeps his mouth shut and doesn't piss off conservatives. Obama will make more than enough gaffs to sink his chances if McCain lets him.
#4
Obama and Hillary have been the only candidates in the spotlight. McCain have been nearly invisible so he won't register as well in the poll. So it's surprising and gratifying that he already polls ahead of Obama. When the general election campaign is in full swing and voters compare both candidates' messages (even with the media's bias), McCain will run away with it. I expect a blowout.
Posted by: ed ||
06/07/2008 20:18 Comments ||
Top||
$140 a barrel petrolem, and its headed further up. Adding to the cost of food, possible inflation and driving the dollar down in international trade. And we are at the mercy of Venezula, Iran and other bad actors, as well as Nigeria and other unstable places, due to our huge need for imported oil.
So what has congress done?
ANWR Exploration
House Republicans: 91% Supported
House Democrats: 86% Opposed
Coal-to-Liquid
House Republicans: 97% Supported
House Democrats: 78% Opposed
Oil Shale Exploration
House Republicans: 90% Supported
House Democrats: 86% Opposed
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Exploration
House Republicans: 81% Supported
House Democrats: 83% Opposed
(And the Democrats do this as Cuba and China drill for Cuba barely 50 miles off our shores in South Florida)
Refinery Increased Capacity
House Republicans: 97% Supported
House Democrats: 96% Opposed
SUMMARY
91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of American-made oil and gas.
86% of House Democrats have historically voted against increasing the production of American-made oil and gas.
Over the past 30 years:
Democrats have blocked the development of new sources of petroleum.
Democrats have blocked drilling in ANWR.
Democrats have blocked drilling off the coast of Florida.
Democrats have blocked drilling off of the east coast.
Democrats have blocked drilling off of the west coast.
Democrats have blocked drilling off the Alaskan coast.
Democrats have blocked building oil refineries.
Democrats have blocked clean nuclear energy production.
Democrats have blocked clean coal production.
Democrats believe taxing and suing oil companies will somehow bring down gas prices.
The Democrats have sold out to radical environmentalists, and in doing so have set in place the conditions that can bring ruin to this nation.
Wonder why your groceries cost more? Why you are paying $4 and soon $5 a gallon for gasoline? Wonder why your power bill is going up?
#1
I laugh when Bambi's legion's think he can wave the magic wand. It's the Useless Congresscritter's who ARE the government. 98% of citizens really don't know how gov't works. The danger with the Magic Man is that he won't veto anything, and Queen Nancy will begin to show us how communism really works.
#2
98% of citizens really don't know how gov't works.
And you don't think that was an objective of the NEA? Cause it wouldn't take long to connect the dots between ever increasing taxes for the education special interests and the decline in performance in the schools and knowing where to apply the power to correct the problem.
The General Assembly of the United Nations voted this week to elect Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann as its new president. Readers with a long memory will recall Father D'Escoto (he's a Catholic priest) as Nicaragua's foreign minister during the Sandinista regime of the 1980s. He's also the winner of the 1985 Lenin Prize. Only at the U.N. does that count as a recommendation.
The U.N. also voted to name the government of Burma which otherwise has been busy preventing humanitarian assistance from reaching hundreds of thousands of its own needy victims of last month's devastating cyclone as one of the Assembly's vice presidents. Only at the U.N. is this not considered an embarrassment.
If that weren't enough, a U.S. official was present for the vote which was by acclamation when the U.S. could have at least protested the choice with an empty seat. Nor did the State Department make any effort to offer an alternative to Father d'Escoto, who ran unopposed. Somehow, we don't think this would have happened had John Bolton still been ambassador.
Speaking after his election, Father d'Escoto called for greater "democracy" at the U.N. an odd remark coming from a former servant of a communist dictatorship. He also called for the U.N. to take a stand against "acts of aggression, such as those occurring in Iraq and Afghanistan." That would be American aggression, not the Taliban's, the Mahdi Army's or al Qaeda's.
A former Lenin Prize winner as General Assembly president and cruel Burma as vice president another sick joke from the U.N.
#1
If he's a Catholic priest, it's up to his hierarchy, and ultimately the pope, to rein him in. All they need do is give him a choice between retiring to a monastery for a decade or two of contemplation, or leaving the priesthood. Father D'Escoto wouldn't have nearly the appeal were he merely Mister D'Escoto from Nicuragua. There are lots of other Sandanistas lying about, along with Khmer Rouge, Shining Pathers and Al Qaeda-niks.
Well, ok, the Al Qaeda-niks are either in hiding or dead, but the point still holds.
#2
tw, in 1980 Pope John Paul II declared that priests may not serve in political office. The declaration was aimed at people like D'Escoto. It also affected Father Drinan, who was a congressman from Massachusetts. Fr. Drinan resigned from Congress rather than give up his priesthood. I don't know if the ban included appointed office like Foreign Minister or being elected president of the general assembly of the UN.
So it may be that Mr D'Escoto is already no longer a priest. Or else he is ignoring the Pope.
Posted by: Rambler in California ||
06/07/2008 17:22 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I appreciate you telling me that, Rambler. I hadn't yet found Rantburg then, so I was horribly oblivious to things. ;-) Now I won't be so silly next time, my dear, which is one of the things I love about the people here.
Theodore Karasik and Ghassan Schbleym The writers are, respectively, senior political scientist and research assistant at the RAND Corporation in Washington.
Hezbollah's recent flexing of its muscles in Lebanon may well lead to an unintended effect: the long-overdue disarming of the militant group.
Don't hold your breath.
For the first time, Hezbollah suggested that its weapons may be used not only against outsiders - namely, Israel - but against Lebanese. The Lebanese people responded that they were truly fed up.
I guess bumping a few people off and intimidating the rest might "suggest" that...
As part of the peace talks that ended the crisis, it was agreed that the question of Hezbollah's arsenal will be discussed. The question of Hezbollah's weaponry and intentions are now, more than ever, on the table.
Now they're up to discussing. 80 or 90 years from now they might run out of wind and actually do something.
Until these recent events, Hezbollah could hang onto its arms by invoking the Israeli threat and the unresolved "four bleeding wounds:" the disputed Shebaa Farms in the Lebanese-Syrian-Israeli border area, the Israeli Air Force "buzzing" over Lebanon, Lebanese detainees in Israel, and the map of the land mines Israel planted in southern Lebanon before 2000 along with the coordinates of cluster bombs dropped during the 2006 war with Hezbollah. This new dynamic presents an opportunity for the United States. It could work with the international community - including Arab states that see Hezbollah's actions as a security threat - and push Israel to resolve these outstanding issues with the organization.
Yes. Just give them what the want and they're sure to stop hitting you.
Once the four wounds are healed Hezbollah will face increasing internal Lebanese pressure to disarm.
Yep. Life'll be grand, in the sweet by and by.
Momentum is on the side of diplomacy. With the Lebanese people fed up, and international pressure building, there just may be a shot at positive unintended consequences.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/07/2008 00:04 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under: Hezbollah
#1
push Israel to resolve these outstanding issues with the organization.
Frankly, it seems like Al Qaeda is becoming more like the Pentagon with each passing day. Women want equal rights to wage Jihad; the bureaucrats issue nasty memos and want to coordinate strategic communication; and now they're putting out the equivalent of a "request for proposals" on how to cause madness and mayhem.
"Senior al-Qaida leaders through a password protected Internet message board periodically ask their loyal readers to send in their best ideas for attacking their enemies," reports National Defense, quoting recent remarks by Rita Katz, of the SITE Institute. Katz claims Al Qaeda gets "thousands" of responses.
Basically they are using all the jihadists throughout the world as their eyes, said Katz. The request called for members to look for vulnerabilities in U.S. government facilities or for targets anywhere in the world, she said.
This shows that terrorist groups are not lacking for ideas when it comes to cooking up deadly plots, but Katz warned that its important to distinguish chatter from real threats.
What next? A DARPA for terrorists? A prize for the most innovative terrorist idea?
Posted by: Fred ||
06/07/2008 00:04 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under: al-Qaeda
#1
Wel-l-l, iff this was Afghan War = Afghanistan and I was in cahoots wid Osama, I would be criticizing him for not nuking NYC + Washington DC, etc. the first time. THE ONLY REASON TO USE AIRLINERS THAT WAY ON 9-11 IS TO SPANK = LIGHTLY "WARN" THE USA, NOT KILL THE USA.
THE DEVIL IS IN THE POLITICS, NOT WAR ITSELF > IS THE GOAL TO WAGE WAR FOR VICTORY, OR TO WAGE POLITICS + PERVASIVE POLITICAL CORRECTNESS-DENIABILITY???
#3
Hey, I think I too could prove a threat, I could have plenty of wild, wicked ideas to harm people and spread chaos! I'm so bitter and frustrated, it's like I'm being turned inside-out by a never-ending black hole of sourness and hatred for just about everybody... so, yeah, I could have plenty of such ideas, in fact, I have. What I need is an outlet. Perhaps I should convert?
#7
A standard Purchasing organization technique, Mr. Wife says, used at his company, U.S. government bureaus, and so forth. One of the Al Qaeda MBAs clearly is flexing his expensive education.
Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury
For Australia the trajectory of terrorism in Southeast Asia is of particular concern. And in many ways developments in Southeast Asia mirror those globally. Considerable progress has been made in counter-terrorism efforts. The political will to deal with terrorism is stronger today than in the aftermath of the first Bali bombings in October 2002. Better cooperation is occurring among security forces and intelligence agencies.
Capacity building programs by Australia and others are bearing fruit. Key leaders have been arrested or killed. I have mentioned the arrest of Hambali, the main link between Jemaah Islamiyah and Al Qaida and a key player in the first Bali attack. Last year Azahari also closely involved in the Bali 1 bombing was killed. And around 300 Jemaah Islamiyah members have been arrested in Indonesia. Nevertheless, Jemaah Islamiyah remains a capable and resilient terrorist group. It retains links with Al Qaida but it is not dependent on Al Qaida for either funding or operational support. Under pressure it has become more decentralized in its structure and operational planning. But its strategic objectives and its targeting of Australia and the West are unchanged. Jemaah Islamiyah has continued to carry out attacks, most recently the second Bali bombing which targeted Westerners including Australians, but actually killed many more Indonesians. Jemaah Islamiyah can draw on a pool of trained bomb makers and a larger pool of sympathizers who can provide logistical support for a core of operational planners. This situation will not change soon, despite the general abhorrence of the overwhelming majority of Indonesians towards Jemaah Islamiyahs methods and goals. There are several other issues to which we must play close attention in Southeast Asia. One of the key elements of Al Qaidas method has been to globalize what are essentially local disputes and portray what are nationalist or ethnic conflicts as being part of a more important, and strategic global jihad. So we need to be alert to whether Al Qaida or Jemaah Islamiyah are succeeding in injecting themselves into the separatist conflicts in the southern Philippines and southern Thailand.
In the Philippines this is already the case with Jemaah Islamiyahs links into the southern Philippines giving it a longer strategic reach. In return for safe haven and a certain strategic depth, Jemaah Islamiyah has provided groups in the south with terrorist training. This relationship has extended the capabilities of all participating groups. In contrast we have seen little evidence so far that Jemaah Islamiyah or Al
Qaida has managed to inject itself into the separatist conflict in southern Thailand, although the longer the conflict continues, the greater opportunity there will be for outside groups to interfere.
The war against terror is a misleading metaphor because it suggests there will be a decisive moment when we know whether we face victory or defeat. The reality is that this will be a long and incremental struggle waged on many fronts. Part of the struggle will involve finding and eliminating terrorists and constraining their support bases. But at a broader level it will also involve blunting the appeal of violent extremism by giving potential recruits a greater sense of hope than the nihilism which lies at the core of terrorist psychology.
It is in this area that economic and political factors intersect with the drivers of terrorism. Open societies delivering on the economic aspirations of their citizens are not a guarantee against terrorism. But they will go a large way towards blunting the appeal of extremists. Democracies are more likely to be responsive to the grievances that can lead people to adopt violence. They are more likely to implement the economic reforms which will not only increase the size of the pie but share it more equitably. In the long run democracy can break the political and economic hold of narrow elites, allow the kind of civil society that permits free expression, and reduce the corruption that plagues authoritarian societies. But democratization cannot be an immediate panacea. Firstly, groups like Al Qaida are not going to lay down their arms and participate in a democratic process. For Zawahiri and Zarqawi, democracy puts human law ahead of Gods law and is therefore abhorrent. They hate Islamist groups that participate in the democratic process as much as they hate the Middle Easts current regimes. Terrorists would probably still target those governments even with such Islamist groups in power just as they target the democratically elected government in Iraq. Since new democracies would probably be supported by the West, then the West too will remain a target.
Secondly, democratization can in the short term increase strategic uncertainty. Due to the lack of secular or liberal political parties in the Middle East, it is probable that Islamist parties of some stripe would win many elections. And we simply dont know what a group like the Muslim Brotherhood would be like in power. The recent success of Hamas in the Palestinian elections illustrates these points. Certainly one can argue that the responsibility of governing should be a moderating influence in the long term. But whether this turns out to be the case in the short to medium term in the Middle East is by no means certain. And thirdly, radicals can exploit political space in democracies, especially newly emerging ones: space which authoritarian regimes would deny them. A militant Islamist fringe is now present in post-Suharto democratic Indonesia; a fringe which seeks to intimidate mainstream Muslims and non-Muslims alike, and parts of which is feeding recruits to Jamaah Islamiyah. Few Indonesians agree with their ideology, and even fewer with their methods. But enough are at least sympathizing with the Islamists narrative of Muslim victim hood and Western conspiracy to make counterterrorism co-operation with Western countries politically sensitive.
While terrorism - even in the form of suicide attacks is not an Islamic phenomenon by definition, it cannot be ignored that the lions share of terrorist acts and the most devastating of them in recent years have been perpetrated in the name of Islam. This fact has sparked a fundamental debate both in the West and within the Muslim world regarding the link between these acts and the teachings of Islam. Most Western analysts are hesitant to identify such acts with the bona fide teachings of one of the worlds great religions and prefer to view them as a perversion of a religion that is essentially peace-loving and tolerant. Western leaders have reiterated time and again that the war against terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. It is a war against evil.
Modern international Islamist terrorism is a natural offshoot of twentieth-century Islamic fundamentalism. The Islamic Movement emerged in the Arab world and British-ruled India as a response to the dismal state of Muslim society in those countries: social injustice, rejection of traditional mores, acceptance of foreign domination and culture. It perceives the malaise of modern Muslim societies as having strayed from the straight path and the solution to all ills in a return to the original mores of Islam. The problems addressed may be social or political: inequality, corruption, and oppression. But in traditional Islam and certainly in the worldview of the Islamic fundamentalist there is no separation between the political and the religious. Islam is, in essence, both religion and regime and no area of human activity is outside its remit. Be the nature of the problem as it may, Islam is the solution.
The underlying element in the radical Islamist worldview is a historic and dichotomist: Perfection lies in the ways of the Prophet of Islam and the events of his time; therefore, religious innovations, philosophical relativism, and intellectual or political pluralism are anathema. In such a worldview, there can exist only two camps Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb which are pitted against each other until the final victory of Islam. These concepts are carried to their extreme conclusion by the radicals; however, they have deep roots in mainstream Islam.
While the trigger for Islamic awakening was frequently the meeting with the West, Islamic-motivated rebellions against colonial powers rarely involved individuals from other Muslim countries or broke out of the confines of the territories over which they were fighting. Until the 1980s, most fundamentalist movements such as the Muslim Brotherhood were inward-looking; Western superiority was viewed as the result of Muslims having forsaken the teachings of the Prophet. Therefore, the remedy was, first, re-Islamization of Muslim society and restoration of an Islamic government, based on Islamic law [Shariah]. In this context, jihad was aimed mainly against apostate Muslim governments and societies, while the historic offensive jihad of the Muslim world against the infidels was put in abeyance [at least until the restoration of the caliphate].
Posted by: Fred ||
06/07/2008 00:03 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under: Global Jihad
#1
Last I heard, they reject foreign mores on foreign soil. Time to reject them.
At $3 a gallon, Americans just grin and bear it, suck it up and, while complaining profusely, keep driving like crazy. At $4, it is a world transformed. Americans become rational creatures. Mass transit ridership is at a 50-year high. Driving is down 4 percent. (Any U.S. decline is something close to a miracle.) Hybrids and compacts are flying off the lots. SUV sales are in free fall.
The wholesale flight from gas guzzlers is stunning in its swiftness, but utterly predictable. Everything has a price point. Remember that "love affair" with SUVs? Love, it seems, has its price too.
America's sudden change in car-buying habits makes suitable mockery of that absurd debate Congress put on last December on fuel efficiency standards. At stake was precisely what miles-per-gallon average would every car company's fleet have to meet by precisely what date.
It was one out-of-a-hat number (35 mpg) compounded by another (by 2020). It involved, as always, dozens of regulations, loopholes and throws at a dartboard. And we already knew from past history what the fleet average number does. When oil is cheap and everybody wants a gas guzzler, fuel efficiency standards force manufacturers to make cars that nobody wants to buy. When gas prices go through the roof, this agent of inefficiency becomes an utter redundancy.
At $4 a gallon, the fleet composition is changing spontaneously and overnight, not over the 13 years mandated by Congress. (Even Stalin had the modesty to restrict himself to five-year plans.) Just Tuesday, GM announced that it would shutter four SUV and truck plants, add a third shift to its compact and midsize sedan plants in Ohio and Michigan, and green-light for 2010 the Chevy Volt, an electric hybrid.
Some things, like renal physiology, are difficult. Some things, like Arab-Israeli peace, are impossible. And some things are preternaturally simple. You want more fuel-efficient cars? Don't regulate. Don't mandate. Don't scold. Don't appeal to the better angels of our nature. Do one thing: Hike the cost of gas until you find the price point.
Unfortunately, instead of hiking the price ourselves by means of a gasoline tax that could be instantly refunded to the American people in the form of lower payroll taxes, we let the Saudis, Venezuelans, Russians and Iranians do the taxing for us -- and pocket the money that the tax would have recycled back to the American worker.
This is insanity. For 25 years and with utter futility (starting with "The Oil-Bust Panic," the New Republic, February 1983), I have been advocating the cure: a U.S. energy tax as a way to curtail consumption and keep the money at home. On this page in May 2004 (and again in November 2005), I called for "the government -- through a tax -- to establish a new floor for gasoline," by fully taxing any drop in price below a certain benchmark. The point was to suppress demand and to keep the savings (from any subsequent world price drop) at home in the U.S. Treasury rather than going abroad. At the time, oil was $41 a barrel. It is now $123.
But instead of doing the obvious -- tax the damn thing -- we go through spasms of destructive alternatives, such as efficiency standards, ethanol mandates and now a crazy carbon cap-and-trade system the Senate is debating this week. These are infinitely complex mandates for inefficiency and invitations to corruption. But they have a singular virtue: They hide the cost to the American consumer.
Want to wean us off oil? Be open and honest. The British are paying $8 a gallon for petrol. Goldman Sachs is predicting we will be paying $6 by next year. Why have the extra $2 (above the current $4) go abroad? Have it go to the U.S. Treasury as a gasoline tax and be recycled back into lower payroll taxes.
Announce a schedule of gas tax hikes of 50 cents every six months for the next two years. And put a tax floor under $4 gasoline, so that as high gas prices transform the U.S. auto fleet, change driving habits and thus hugely reduce U.S. demand -- and bring down world crude oil prices -- the American consumer and the American economy reap all of the benefit.
Herewith concludes my annual exercise in futility. By the time I write next year's edition, you'll be paying for gas in bullion.
Posted by: Bobby ||
06/07/2008 15:25 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
No way am I trading the ol' M/B land yacht in for a hybrid. She's got at least another half-million miles in her. Heck I might belch out enough emissions to warm the globe all by myself.
#5
Variable oil import fee that will maintain the cost of a barrel of imported oil at $100 if the market price paid falls below $100 with the proceeds remitted per capita to all social security card holders. That's all we need to do.
#7
Great plan, except the US does not control the price of oil. Any tax only adds to the world price of oil. Any reduction in consumption will be more than absorbed by growing China alone (whose car sales should exceed US sales this or next year), not to mention India and the other growing Asian economies. Other than taking the Persian Gulf oil fields and in the process funding our war effort with plenty left over, the only viable solution is electric centric transportation and that will take a generation at a minimum. Any surtax will have to go to speeding up BEV, PHEV and infrastructure adoption.
We're in this squeeze because of a complete lack of leadership and strategic planning. It didn't take a genius to figure out 6 1/2 years ago that our enemies would use their only effective weapon.
Posted by: ed ||
06/07/2008 19:04 Comments ||
Top||
#8
TW, GM is closing 4 truck plants. That means full size trucks and SUVs. They are adding shifts in their small car plants. Smaller SUVs built on car chassis get mileage similar to cars.
Posted by: ed ||
06/07/2008 19:09 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Any tax only adds to the world price of oil.
Any tax only adds to prices in addition to the world price of oil.
Too many beers today.
Posted by: ed ||
06/07/2008 19:11 Comments ||
Top||
#10
It didn't take a genius to figure out 6 1/2 years ago that our enemies would use their only effective weapon.
You give them too much credit. Oil is priced by demand at the point of use (ultimately at the pump but more directly at the refinery). Futures markets don't move the price at the point of use unless they take delivery and warehouse the stocks. This was done a few years ago with rented tankers anchored with full holds. There is no evidence of this now except for a dozen or so tankers off Iran.
Instead you will find that Persian Gulf oil exports have dropped by almost 1 million barrels/day just in the past year. Saudi Arabia alone has a production capacity of 12 or so million barrels/day but elect to produce 9 or 9.5. During the Iran-Iraq war when they wanted to cripple Iran, they produced full out and oil dropped to $8/barrel. Now they want to cripple the west and the US specifically. In a rising consumption market they can do that without resorting to an embargo or drastic cuts, but by holding production steady or slowly declining. That they are making 5X/barrel than pre Sept 11 is the icing on the cake.
Posted by: ed ||
06/07/2008 20:08 Comments ||
Top||
#13
P.S. What has kept a lid on oil prices rising even faster has been sharply increased Russian oil exports. That is now over and Russian exports are expected to decline over the years.
Posted by: ed ||
06/07/2008 20:12 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Ed - correct, at least until the Chinese move into Siberia to increase production and transport efficiency.
#15
Wait till US unemployment goes to 7.5%, demand for cheap Chinese goods goes to 0 because of internal dislocations following the Olympics and oil goes to $70 or lower per barrel. Because of inelastic demand, oil is volatile, up and down, whatever the reason. Go long SUVs now.
#16
Except that oil exploration is going crazy, and oil has been found pretty much everywhere, as far as I can tell. And if oil prices stay high or go even higher, as presumably the Saudis and other jihadi countries would like, the oil will be exploited, non-oil burning power plants (nuclear, natural gas/gas from coal, even coal fired) will be built, and in the end the jihadi countries will lose both their economic war and their terror jihad.
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.
Clint Eastwood folds his gangly frame behind a clifftop table at the Hotel Du Cap, a few miles up the coast from Cannes, sighs deeply, and squints out over the Mediterranean. "Has he ever studied the history?" he asks, in that familiar near-whisper.
