I realize this a blog posting, but we need to be aware of this:
In recent days our reader and frequent commenter Kepiblanc has talked about the coming takeover of local European internet governance by the EU. His latest mention of it was on yesterdays Fjordman post:
Fjordmans enthusiasm for the Internet may vanish when he realizes that the EU is about to take over control of the DNS (Domain Name System) from USA-based ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers). A few years from now no European citizen will be able to read blogs like this one.....
#2
We're not saying all of ICANN, just the European DNS connection. The idea is that the EU will control the DNS pipe into all of its member states. It doesn't affect Americans, but it could keep a Belgian from seeing Rantburg. Just as an example...
John Sobieski said...
The plan is to be able to control 'hatesites' by being able to turn them off at the root. That is really what they are after. Of course, who gets to decide what is a hatesite would rest with the same elites who have already decided to submit to Islam.
For many Americans, the expression Christian Europe is an oxymoron. As both the secular and religious press tell us, Europe is post-Christian and thoroughly secularizedso much so that the drafters of the new European constitution could not bring themselves to acknowledge Europes Christian past, never mind its present.
But, to paraphrase Mark Twain, reports of Christianitys demise in Europe may have been greatly exaggerated.
Thats what Dutch columnist Joshua Livestro argued in a recent piece in the Weekly Standard. The article, titled Hollands Post-Secular Future, describes what Livestro calls a Dutch relapse into religiosity. And by religiosity he means Christianity.
A very public example of this relapse is the corporate prayer movement. More than one hundred companiesincluding Dutch stalwarts like Phillips and KLM, as well as the governmentfacilitate on-site prayer meetings for their employees. The phenomenon is such an established part of corporate life that Dutch unions [lobbied] the government for recognition of workers right to prayer in the workplace.
Another possible example of the rekindling of Dutch Christianity is the remarkable critical and commercial success of a number of openly Christian writers. In 2005, Hollands most prestigious literary prizes went to books dealing in a sympathetic way with Christian issues of faith and redemption.
One of these books, Kneeling on a Bed of Roses, by Calvinist author Jan Siebelink, was the second-best selling Dutch book of the past decade. Want to know the best-selling book? A new Dutch translation of the Bible, which sold 500,000 copies in a nation of 16 million people: the equivalent of 10 million copies in the United States.
Then theres the success of the Alpha Courses. More than 120,000 Dutch have taken these introduction-to-Christianity courses. Even the head of the program is surprised at its success. As he told Livestro, theres a growing group, most of them young people, who are genuinely interested, for whom this is all completely new.
These are a few of the reasons why Livestro thinks that the century-long wave of secularization seems to have crested, and may even have begun to recedea hypothesis supported by the data.
While this news is very heartening, we are still left with the question, What lies behind the relapse? One answer is that the alternative to the Christian faith has been tried and found wanting.
Secularisms failure was not for lack of trying. As historian Tony Judt has written, leaders in post-war Europe worked hard to forget the past, including Europes Christian roots. They thought societies that provided everything and forbade nothing would make western Europeans happy and secure.
It did neither. Instead, the results included suicide rates between four and sixteen times higher than that of less developed European countries and the United States. Combine this with the notoriously low European birthrates and what you get is despair, a society imploding.
As the Dutch are discovering after a century of secularization, its not too late. It never is with the Gospel. While Christianity may be completely new to them, its truths are eternal. And that gives Europeansand all of usgreat hope indeed.
#2
The proof is in the doing. This article smacks of self-deception.
So private sector laborers and entrepreneurs are still somewhat religious? What percentage of the total of Europe does this represent?
What about the legions of pensioners, and the gigantic public sector? What about the class of '68 mandarins who are running the show in Euroland right now? Aren't these three groups, taken in aggregate, the majority and the ones who are in charge? Have they not taken steps to suppress religious expression? Are they not secular/atheist evangelicals who wield much more power than the religious could ever hope to do going forward?
Just asking.
It's one thing to see a movement within a small group in society and another entirely to see it reach the head of the rotting fish and set things right. It happened before once, in ancient Rome, but I suspect changes in technology, particularly information technology, will make it difficult for that to happen again.
I predict that if anything like a Roe effect starts to happen, the oligarchs in Brussels will pass laws to make sure that Christianity does not, in fact, burgeon, probably along the lines of the Chinese model of population control.
My experience with secular fundamentalists is that they are no different from any other fundamentalists, and that they will resort to whatever is necessary to preserve their "way".
Posted by: no mo uro ||
01/30/2007 6:24 Comments ||
Top||
#3
For some reason, I doubt the workplace prayer sites are being used by Christians.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
01/30/2007 7:44 Comments ||
Top||
#4
The proof is in the doing.
Agreed, No Mo Uro. Still, there's that success with the "Alpha Course" that one has to factor in. Its pretty much the case that Christians stick to their faith and benefit from it more if there is a systematic education in its elements.
And I am not surprised at the circulation figures for the translation of the Bible: the NYT best seller lists, as a matter of PRINCIPLE, excludes Christian bookstores and sales of the Bible, since the conclusions one would base on a more complete (and honest) Best Sellers list would be contrary to NYT political policy.
#5
In times of complete uncertainty, people tend to return home. Home to God and family. They are looking for something to cling to, something to identify with. Islam's not it. Socialism's not it. The nanny state's not it.
# The U.S. is actually quite popular worldwide; so much so, in fact, that its government must create artificial terrorist organizations to attack it. Left to their own devices, everybody else pretty much respects Americans and leaves them alone.
# It takes the complacency or cooperation of the world's largest superpower to hijack a defenseless civilian aircraft.
# If you believe what your government tells you about 9-11, you are part of the conspiracy or, at least, part of "the problem." But if you accuse people at all levels of the government, including the U.S. military, of planning and carrying out the largest terrorist attack on U.S. soil, killing thousands of civilians, then you are a patriot.
# The large fireballs seen at the WTC impacts look like napalm explosions, so it was probably a napalm bomb that actually caused the damage. Of course, napalm being jellied fuel, and jet aircraft being full of fuel, you can see the vast difference there.
# The WTC towers fell in what was obviously a controlled demolition. The largest, messiest, deadliest, most witnessed, most mismanaged, most ill-timed, most poorly executed, and most uncontrolled controlled demolition in history.
# The government planted explosives at the exact aircraft impact sites of the Pentagon and both WTC towers, the explosives and activity surrounding their placement went completely unnoticed, the rigging of the explosives was unharmed by the aircraft impacts, and they went off exactly when planned.
# Somehow orchestrating the hijacking of multiple airliners to have them crash at explosive-rigged sites was more effective than just setting off the explosives by themselves in the first place.
# Those plane crashes were like so totally fake cuz they were so totally unlike all the real fiery passenger jet crashes into buildings I've seen in real life.
# When you refer to the planes, say "alleged aircraft." When referring to the terrorists, say "alleged terrorists." Because not only can we not be sure they even existed, but also, "alleged" has such a nice, objective ring to it.
Posted by: Mike ||
01/30/2007 06:15 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The WTC towers fell in what was obviously a controlled demolition
it was a controlled demolition because an uncontrolled one, one that would have the buildings fall to the side and would look unplanned, would kill innocent passers by. how utterly inane is that?
#5
Scene in an office, WTC.
"Hey buddy, can we move your desk? I gotta drill this hole in the wall?"
"Uh OK"
Later...
"OK I'm done now. Don't touch the red stuff, that's Dynamite."
"What! What's going on?"
"Can't tell you, sorry. Big secret. Gotta run, we got 400,000 of these to do..."
#7
C'mon. Who could doubt an expert like Charlie Sheen on such matters? I'm sure the inside info he gets from his coke dealers and porn star girlfriends is pure gold.
That'd almost be like saying Barbara Steisand doesn't know anything about Global Climate Change Warming.
#8
I think the most ridiculous one I saw was the one by a *supposed* scientist who said the crash at the Pentagon couldn't have happened because the hole in the side of the building wasn't EXACTLY the same width as the wingspan of the *supposed* 747 the entered said hole.
Not even discussing all the eyewitnesses there, or the video from that pay to park camera in the lot nextdoor, or the fact that wings can sheer off when hitting ground (or solid limestone buildings) at 400 or so MPH. Nah, that's too logical dooods, and I'm an expert! I SAY that it's a gov't conspiracy 'cause the hole in the Pentagon's not large ENOUGH! Mind boggles how any of these *scientists/engineers* made it thru Sally Struthers' Tech College online.
Posted by: BA ||
01/30/2007 19:55 Comments ||
Top||
#9
whoops, meant "747 that entered said hole..."
Posted by: BA ||
01/30/2007 19:56 Comments ||
Top||
Most Shi'ite Muslims across the Middle East mark on Tuesday the climax of the Ashura religious festival, which has been politicised by sectarian violence in Iraq and Lebanon.
In Kerbala, 70 km (40 miles) north of Najaf, up to 1.5 millions pilgrims gathered to mark Ashura -- the death in battle of Mohammad's grandson in 680, which confirmed the split in Islam between rival claimants to the Prophet's succession.
Here are details of comparative numbers of Sunnis and Shi'ite believers.
* OVERALL VIEW:
-- The majority of the world's 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide (projected almost to double by 2010) follow the Sunni branch of Islam with 10-15 percent following the Shi'ite branch.
-- Shi'ite populations constitute a majority in Iran, Iraq, Bahrain and Azerbaijan.
-- There are also significant Shi'ite populations in Afghanistan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Yemen.
MIDDLE EAST/CENTRAL ASIAN COUNTRIES:
AFGHANISTAN: Population: At least 30 million: Muslims make up 99 percent of the population (80 percent Sunni, 19 percent Shi'ite).
AZERBAIJAN: Population: 8 million: Islam is the main religion of whom around 90 percent are Shi'ite. There are small Orthodox Russian and Orthodox Armenian minorities. IRAN: Population: 70 million. The Shi'ite sect of Islam predominates (89 percent), with some Sunni Muslims (9 percent). There are also Baha'i, Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian minorities. IRAQ: Population: 26 million: Although Shi'ites are the minority sect of Islam, they form some 60 percent of Iraq's population and have dominated the government following the U.S.-led invasion of 2003.
KUWAIT: Population: 2.7 million of whom around 1 million are actually Kuwaitis. In Kuwait sectarian difference is less a politically charged issue, since Shi'ites -- who form one third of the 1 million -- occupy an affluent place in society.
LEBANON: Population: 4.2 million: Muslims make up just over 65 percent of the population, slightly over half of whom are Shi'ites (33 percent). Sunni Muslims make up 27 percent. There is a large Christian population.
SAUDI ARABIA: Population: 24 million including around 7 million foreign workers. Most Saudi citizens belong to the austere Wahhabi branch of Sunni Islam (around 90 percent). A sizeable Shi'ite Muslim minority (10 percent) lives mainly in the large oil-producing Eastern Province.
SYRIA: Population: 19.5 million: Mainly Sunni Muslim (74 percent) and also (16 percent) Alawites, Shi'ite and Ismailis. There are minority Christian denominations.
TURKEY: Population: 73 million: mainly Muslim (80 percent Sunni and 20 percent Shi'ite, including the non-orthodox Alevi). There is a very small Christian minority.
YEMEN: Population: 19 million: Sunni Muslims make up most of Yemen's population while Shi'ite Muslims account for about 15 percent of the population.
#1
The majority of the world's 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide (projected almost to double by 2010) follow the Sunni branch of Islam with 10-15 percent following the Shi'ite branch.
Whew. That's faster than the doubling time of most cancers. I don't get the appeal of islam for people.
If the majority of Iraq is Shi'ite and Iran is largely Shi'ite, it seems inevitable that Iraq will be closely aligned with Iran. In my mind that seems a problem. Am I missing something?
#4
It is a garbage statistic, thrown out to kill debate; sort of like the Lancet 100,000 dead civilians crap. Remember the saying : "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics."
This is propaganda designed to kill any notion of defeating Muslim terrorism, and make one resigned to the terrorists continuing on ad nauseum into the future. Effectively, every Muslim female of child bearing years {12 to 38 or so} would have to have THREE children each within THREE years for those numbers to occur.
#5
And have each of those children live to adulthood. Not bloody likely anyway, considerably less likely the way things are going, if only do to red-on-red activity.
If Oscars were given for best work in a State of the Union address ...
By Rachel Marsden
Two big events took place this week: The Academy Award nominations and U.S. President George W. Bush's State of the Union address. I thought it would be fun to combine the spirit of both and give out some awards for the State of the Union speech.
Best Supporting Actor: Democratic presidential candidate Barack Hussein "Don't Call Me Osama" Obama. Right now, Obama is Hollywood's golden boy and seems to be carving out a niche as the male Oprah. He's African-American! He races through Third World countries! He takes AIDS tests in public! He confesses to Oprah that he prefers flying coach! He describes his family as "a little, mini United Nations"! All he's missing are eyes in the back of his head. If the infamous Clinton smear machine can help it, he'll be stuck in a supporting role.
Best Foreign Language Performance: Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who clocked approximately one eye-blink every two seconds. To someone out there, this must qualify as a language.
Worst Ensemble Cast: All of the Democrats who fancy themselves patriots, yet when Bush spoke of victory in Iraq, they couldn't be bothered to get off their rumps and join the Republicans in a show of support. Even if they were worried about how the voters back home might interpret support for a win in Iraq (heaven forbid), they could have always said, "Look, it was a long speech and my butt was getting sore, okay? Even church services have more built-in stretch breaks."
The Jack Palance Award For Best "Senior" Performance: Palance did one-arm pushups at the Oscars; Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain appeared to be sawing logs during Bush's speech, while simultaneously pushing 70 years of age. Maybe he was just resting his eyes or text messaging his pals, but it's the optics that count. Americans want a leader whom they can trust to pound terrorists -- not just the snooze button on his alarm clock.
Best Adapted Screenplay: President Bush finally took all the leftists by the hand and spelled out how the current movie playing in Iraq affects America and the west: "And out of chaos in Iraq, would emerge an emboldened enemy with new safe havens ... new recruits ... new resources ... and an even greater determination to harm America. To allow this to happen would be to ignore the lessons of Sept. 11th and invite tragedy."
Somehow, leftists have no problem deciphering Noam Chomsky's convoluted gibberish, but couldn't complete a simple connect-the-dots exercise on a Chuck E. Cheese menu.
The Lassie Memorial Award For Leftist Bone Throwing: Speaking of technological developments to reduce America's dependency on foreign oil, Bush added that "they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change." As I sat at home freezing in -13C weather and listening to Bush's knee-slapper, I wondered why the enviro-fascists always seem to require more convincing when it comes to the dangers of terrorism and the importance of fighting it in Iraq, yet don't hold their man-made glo-bull warming theory to the same standard.
Token Dead Guy Award: No award show is complete without one of these. Al-Qaida's Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is busy dirt napping, but had a cameo in the speech: "We will sacrifice our blood and bodies to put an end to your dreams, and what is coming is even worse."
Maybe one of his Hollywood sympathizers can accept the award on this drama queen's behalf.
Best Foreign Language Performance: Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who clocked approximately one eye-blink every two seconds. To someone out there, this must qualify as a language.
Since President Bush announced that he would send more American troops to Iraq, the debate on Iraq policy has reached new levels of stridency. Opponents of the war have rallied against what they see as an unjustified escalation, while the administration has dismissed opposition as defeatism. Vice President Cheney went so far as to say a withdrawal would show that Americans "don't have the stomach for the fight."
Military action in Iraq, however, defies orthodox notions of victory and defeat. We are not in Iraq to defend territory or even to destroy an enemy. Rather, we are pursuing the amorphous task of coaxing out of the Iraqi people and government political decisions that will result in a democratic, pluralistic society that is conducive to regional stability.
While the emergence of such a government and society is still worth pursuing, we must recognize that it is an optimal goal. It should not be the focal point of our Middle East policy or the sole measure of success in Iraq.
We need to recast the geo-strategic reference points of our Iraq policy. Some commentators have compared the Bush plan to a "Hail Mary" pass in football -- a desperate heave deep down the field by a losing team at the end of the game. Actually, a far better analogy for the Bush plan is a draw play on third down with 20 yards to go in the first quarter. The play does have a chance of working if everything goes perfectly, but it is more likely to gain a few yards and set up a punt on the next down, after which the game can be continued under more favorable circumstances.
The president's plan is an early episode in a much broader Middle East realignment that began with our invasion of Iraq and that may not end for years. Nations throughout the Middle East are scrambling to find their footing as regional power balances shift in unpredictable ways.
At the center of this realignment is Iran, which is perceived to have emerged from our Iraq intervention as the big winner. We paved the way for a Shiite government in Iraq that is much friendlier to Iran than was Saddam Hussein. Bolstered by high oil revenue, Iran has meddled in Iraq, rigidly pursued a nuclear capability, and funded Hezbollah and Hamas.
But the pendulum of Middle East politics may be swinging back against Iranian assertiveness. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, the Gulf states and others have become increasingly alarmed by Iran's behavior and by widening regional sectarian divisions. Because of this dynamic, U.S. bargaining power in the Middle East is growing. Moderate Arab states understand that the United States is an indispensable counterweight to Iran.
This opens up opportunities for solidifying our broader strategic objectives, and it offers a backup option in Iraq. Even as the president's Baghdad strategy goes forward, we need to plan for a potent redeployment of U.S. forces in the region to defend oil assets, target terrorist enclaves, deter adventurism by Iran and provide a buffer against regional sectarian conflict. In the best case, we could supplement bases in the Middle East with troops stationed outside urban areas in Iraq. Such a redeployment would allow us to continue training Iraqi troops and delivering economic assistance, but it would not require us to interpose ourselves between Iraqi sectarian factions.
The secretary of state's recent trip to the Middle East and the dispatch of an additional aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf showed that the administration understands the gravity of what is happening in the region. The United States should make clear to our Arab friends that they have a role in promoting reconciliation within Iraq, preventing oil price spikes, splitting Syria from Iran and demonstrating a more united front against terrorism.
The administration must avoid becoming so quixotic in its attempt to achieve the optimal outcome in Iraq that it fails to adjust to shifts in the region or political realities within Iraq. Although any administration would be reluctant to talk about a Plan B when its primary plan is still in motion, the president and Congress must reach a consensus on how to protect our broader strategic interests regardless of what happens in those Baghdad neighborhoods or on the floor of the Senate. Otherwise, the fatigue and frustration with our Iraq policy that is manifest in the resolutions of disapproval before the Senate could lead not just to the rejection of the Bush plan but also to the abandonment of the tools and relationships we need to defend our vital interests in the Middle East.
The writer, a Republican from Indiana, is the ranking minority member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Interesting turn of phrase for Iran's insurgent activies and all the crap they are shipping in here and killing people with. Only a politician could come up with something like that.
"A man could make a fortune selling Geritol to these people."
Capitalist stooge that I am, that was my first reaction upon reaching the Washington Mall last Saturday to observe tens of thousands of demonstrators rally against the war in Iraq.
Expecting a healthy turnout of idealistic youths, I was surprised to find that the crowd was comprised predominantly of middle-aged '60s throwbacks looking to recapture the glory days of the jarring folk music, campus occupations, and general social chaos that accompanied the Vietnam War. When the Raging Grannies showed up, it was hard to distinguish them from the rest of the crowd. . . .
Posted by: Mike ||
01/30/2007 06:08 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Acid-laced Geritol. What a concept. Probably would be a big seller with this crowd. However, they are most likely brain-fried already. Damn, there goes the retirement plan.
#2
The group marched past the fountain and up the field in front of the Capitol, pushing aside some flexible green mesh fencing. (Or, in the words of one protestor later relating the events to his attractive female comrade, We smashed through the barricades.)
#4
Wellll....come on all you big strong men..uncle sam needs your HALP again... got em' self in a terrible jam...........Or He's an OLD HIPPY and he don't know what to do, should he hang on to the old , should grab on to the new.....
#1
The notion that communal identity didn't exist prior to the Gulf wars (1 & 2) is like arguing Baltic or Croatia national identity didn't exist prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union, i.e. ridiculous. The reality is that it was violently supressed in Iraq as in the other places.
#2
Hopefully most Iraq constitutionalists will support a federal state. However, a central power has to exist for security purposes. Most Iraqis would support US/UK brokerage rather than submission to Ayatollah aggression.
#1
This is pretty depressing. D'Souza was bang on with Illiberal Education, then he goes and writes this ridiculous tripe. Conservatives have nothing in common with any faction of Islam except those who want to curb its excesses -- if such Muslims even exist. If the social conservatives find it more important to attack the Left than to attack the West's enemies then they're going to lose national defense conservatives like me. And that's bad for all of us.
Posted by: Jonathan ||
01/30/2007 14:21 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Exactly. It is no better than the "tiny minority" of the left that wants to score points off the President more than it wants to defend human dignity in the face of 7th century barbarism.
#3
I'm with you, Excalibur and Jonathan. It is one thing to be surprised that Bin Laden selected a target that has stronger religious values than many other countries; it is quite another thing to suggest we should find commonality with Islam's "religious values". Such a 'marriage of values' would be ruinous for our country.
On Thursday, Darrell Scott, the father of Rachel Scott, a victim of the Columbine High School shootings in Littleton, Colorado, was invited to address the House Judiciary Committee's subcommittee. What he said to our national leaders during this special session of Congress was painfully truthful. They were not prepared for what he was to say, nor was it received well. It needs to be heard by every parent, every teacher, every politician, every sociologist, every psychologist, and every so-called expert! These courageous words spoken by Darrell Scott are powerful, penetrating, and deeply personal. There is no doubt that God sent this man as a voice crying in the wilderness. The following is a portion of the transcript:
#1
Your laws ignore our deepest needs, Your words are empty air. You've stripped away our heritage, ...
Oh, man - I fantasize about being able to say words like that to Congresscritters' faces in a committee hearing. Though the price Mr. Scott paid to have that opportunity is way too high.
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.
Capitalist stooge that I am, that was my first reaction upon reaching the Washington Mall last Saturday to observe tens of thousands of demonstrators rally against the war in Iraq.
