It is official; Somalia is in the throes of food crisis that may affect the lives of millions of Somalis. Global crisis caused by rising food and fuel prices, unchecked inflation and droughts have compounded to make the lives of people living in Somalia unbearable. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, states that about 2.6 million Somalis are experiencing severe food shortages and depend on assistance at the moment. This number is expected to increase to more than 3 million by the end of the year.
The global food crisis and its subsequent affects have taken everyone by surprise. Since January, the price of rice has risen by 141%, while wheat prices have climbed by 25%. While the reasons for this food crisis are multifaceted, ranging from increased demands by Chinese and Indian populations to droughts experienced by the worlds leading wheat and rice producers, the affects of this crisis have been uniform around the world. Protests against the increasing costs of food have taken place in Haiti, Indonesia, the Philippines, Egypt, and Bangladesh. In the case of Haiti, these protests turned violent, claiming the lives of six people and bringing down the government of Prime Minister, Jacques Eduard Alexis.
For all intents and purposes, Indonesia, the Philippines and Egypt are developed countries that have higher GDPs compared to Somalia. Yet, the governments of these countries are having difficult time in dealing with these crises. According to Joachim von Braun, head of the International Food Policy Research Institute in Washington, world agriculture has entered a new, unsustainable and politically risky period. So how does Somalia, a country in the midst of an eighteen year old civil war, with no effective government and destroyed infrastructure coupled with a violent insurgency deal with a crisis of this magnitude? The simple answer is that it cannot.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
05/12/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Muslims are incapable of detaching islamic politics from any issue; including starvation. Let them eat jihad.
Despite a great deal of discussion insisting the Democratic primary is settled, I'll be liveblogging tomorrow night, as the results from West Virginia come in. The polls close at 7:30 p.m. eastern, and the networks really ought to be able to declare Hillary the winner at about 7:29:59.
But the margin will be interesting. As it's being widely remarked this week, no Democratic president has won the White House since 1916, without winning West Virginia. If Obama gets thrashed in West Virginia, how great will his chances be in this state in November? I think even his staunchest supporters would acknowledge he has an uphill climb here.
I realize it's a great state for Hillary and a tough state for Obama, but shouldn't Obama be getting at least a little bump out of overperforming last week? If he can come within two points in Indiana, why would closing the gap in West Virginia by a few points seem so difficult?
In West Virginia, Suffolk puts Hillary up by 36 percent. ARG has Clinton by 43 percent. Rasmussen has Clinton by 29 percent, his best showing. TSG has Clinton by 40 percent. (At the beginning of April, ARG showed Clinton only up by 15 percent.)
Yes, Obama chose not to campaign in West Virginia this week. But doesn't effectively skipping/conceding the primary make the general election campaign tougher? Can he sell a message of, "I didn't act like I needed your vote in the primary, but I want it for the general?"
And as some have noted, Bill Clinton has subtly turned up the dial on the "resentment" vibe as he travels around West Virginia:
"Hillary is in this race because of people like you and places like this and no matter what they say," Clinton said. "And no matter how much fun they make of your support of her and the fact that working people all over America have stuck with her, she thinks you're as smart as they are. She thinks you've got as much right to have your say as anybody else. And, you know, they make a lot of fun of me because I like to campaign in places like this, they say I have been exiled to rural America, as if that was a problem. I don't know about you, but I'd rather be here than listening to that stuff I have to hear on television, I'd rather be with you. There is a simple reason: You need a president a lot more than those people telling you not to vote for her."
Have the Clintons begun poisoning the well for 2008, in hopes for 2012?
Posted by: Mike ||
05/12/2008 13:24 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Have the Clintons begun poisoning the well for 2008, in hopes for 2012?
The Clinton motto should be: "Poisoning the political well since 1992--and before."
BARACK OBAMA has emerged as a classic example of charismatic leadership a figure upon whom others project their own hopes and desires. . . . One danger of such charisma, however, is that it can evoke unrealistic hopes of what a candidate could actually accomplish in office regardless of his own personal abilities. Case in point is the oft-made claim that an Obama presidency would be welcomed by the Muslim world.
. . . As the son of the Muslim father, Senator Obama was born a Muslim under Muslim law as it is universally understood. It makes no difference that, as Senator Obama has written, his father said he renounced his religion. Likewise, under Muslim law based on the Koran his mothers Christian background is irrelevant.
Of course, as most Americans understand it, Senator Obama is not a Muslim. He chose to become a Christian, and indeed has written convincingly to explain how he arrived at his choice and how important his Christian faith is to him.
His conversion, however, was a crime in Muslim eyes; it is irtidad or ridda, usually translated from the Arabic as apostasy, but with connotations of rebellion and treason. Indeed, it is the worst of all crimes that a Muslim can commit, worse than murder (which the victims family may choose to forgive).
With few exceptions, the jurists of all Sunni and Shiite schools prescribe execution for all adults who leave the faith not under duress; the recommended punishment is beheading at the hands of a cleric, although in recent years there have been both stonings and hangings. . . . It is true that the criminal codes in most Muslim countries do not mandate execution for apostasy (although a law doing exactly that is pending before Irans Parliament and in two Malaysian states). But as a practical matter, in very few Islamic countries do the governments have sufficient authority to resist demands for the punishment of apostates at the hands of religious authorities. One thing to point out: the governments in most "Muslim" countries are simple thugocracies. Iran and Saudi are religious dictatorships; in Syria and Egypt and most other places, they're simple dictatorships. The only faith motivating the government of Syria, for example, is an unwavering belief that Baby Assad is and should be the absolute ruler of Syria. Islam got nothin' to do with it.
Because no government is likely to allow the prosecution of a President Obama not even those of Iran and Saudi Arabia, the only two countries where Islamic religious courts dominate over secular law another provision of Muslim law is perhaps more relevant: it prohibits punishment for any Muslim who kills any apostate, and effectively prohibits interference with such a killing.
At the very least, that would complicate the security planning of state visits by President Obama to Muslim countries, because the very act of protecting him would be sinful for Islamic security guards. As a matter of pure self-interest, nobody would want to have a US president assasinated on their soil and have it look like an inside job--so they'll maintain airtight security and just ignore the theological implications.
More broadly, most citizens of the Islamic world would be horrified by the fact of Senator Obamas conversion to Christianity once it became widely known as it would, no doubt, should he win the White House. Or, just as likely, most wouldn't care much one way or the other, but they would notice the contradiction between the strict "death to all apostates!" pronouncement and the actual behavior of the local thugocracy. What further effects that might have would be unknown.
This would compromise the ability of governments in Muslim nations to cooperate with the United States in the fight against terrorism, as well as American efforts to export democracy and human rights abroad.
That an Obama presidency would cause such complications in our dealings with the Islamic world is not likely to be a major factor with American voters, and the implication is not that it should be. But of all the well-meaning desires projected on Senator Obama, the hope that he would decisively improve relations with the worlds Muslims is the least realistic.
Amazing: the NYT is part of the Rethuglican attack machine!
Posted by: Mike ||
05/12/2008 12:31 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"As the son of the Muslim father, Senator Obama was born a Muslim under Muslim law as it is universally understood. "
dont you have to say the shahida "Allah is god, and Mo is his prophet" to be a muslim - its not like being a jew, you dont get it by blood alone. It may be that just as in (non-baptist) christianity the parents can christen an infant, the father can say the shahida on the childs behalf - in which case the question would be did Obamas dad ever do so - my sense is that Obamas dad wasnt religious, and didnt do so. Any evidence otherwise?
#2
Just as the child of a Jewish mother is a Jew unless it converts to another religion, liberalhawk. Obama, Sr. was born a Muslim; if he practiced any other religion that would make him an apostate Muslim, if he renounced his religion that would make him an apostate Muslim. Barack Hussein Obama was baptized a Christian by the now retired Reverend Wright as an adult, so clearly he thought he was converting, although from what isn't clear.
#3
I'm no fan of Luttwak who I consider an arrogent blowhard.
However, I'm pretty sure that most of Sunni and Shia law is that the child takes the religion of the father rather than the wife (I think the law is a bit weakerr when the man fathers a child with a concubine). The law has to deal with verses in the Qrn which forbid friendships outside the faith (so if your kid isn't your faith, that would be a problem) and those that forbid leaving Islam plus the traditions of Islamic leaders taking non muslim woman as prizes of conquest.
I think this whole tradition is one reason why Muslim women who date Christians are sometimes murdered - their offspring would not be Muslim).
On the other hand, I don't know of single case where any of the four star Imans has pushed this meme regarding Obama.
#4
TW: Depending on the denomination, adult baptisim isn't always the mark of a convert. In the Catholic church, baptism is one of the rites of initiation, which is why we baptize babies. Some Protestants do this, too--Lutherans and AME, that I know of. (Interesting fun fact: the Catholic church will recognize a baptism performed in another denomination as valid.)
In other Protestant denominations, "conversion" technically occurs when you accept Christ, and baptism is an optional thing you do at some later time as an affirmation of your existing commitment. My Baptist wife didn't get baptized until she was over 40. (Yes, baptism is optional for Baptists. Go figure.)
I'm not sure what UCC's policy is on this point, but Obama could very well have been a Christian long before he was baptized.
Posted by: Mike ||
05/12/2008 14:31 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Mike, Catholicism also allows for conversion without baptism - its "conversion of desire", in which circumstance prevent the physical baptism rite from happening.
But the recommendation for adults in non-extenuating circumstances is the RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults) - go to the development and catechetical education for usually 9 months prior broken into 3 stages -
inquirer -- no committment, learn what Catholicism is, including the history, unvarnished [yes crusades, inquisition, etc], of the Church
seeker -- no binding committment, seek a to learn the basic theology and faith of Catholics and the Church, and establish a connection to God and the Church.
And finally "catechumin" -- where you commit to become an official learner, with an expected further committment to come into full communion with the Church. This is where you learn the obligations and duties of a Catholic, where you make the commitment to the Church and sign the Book of the Elect.
The final phase is to get the Sacrements of Initiaiton: baptism, confirmation and first communion all in one fell swoop at the Easter Vigil Mass.
Although most people complete this in the usual 9 months, some take a few years in the first, or the middle, or even the last stage, prior to making the committment and completing the Sacraments.
As you can see, becoming a Catholic is not exactly a quick process in normal circumstances.
#6
"However, I'm pretty sure that most of Sunni and Shia law is that the child takes the religion of the father rather than the wife "
Is that actually a matter of islam passing by blood a la membership in the Jewish people (note, Judaism does NOT pass by blood - but thats irrelevant, we are a nation, which one is bound to, regardless of religion - you can apostacize from truth, but you leaving the jewish people isnt wrong, its impossible - which is why Jews for Jesus IF actually born Jews, ARE Jews) or is it just that the father as legal head of the family has the right and obligation to take on the shadida on behalf of the child, a la infant baptism?
There are a bunch of traditions on this. One tradition, not accepted by every muslim, is that all babies, everywhere are born muslim and only the misguided views of infidel parents make them otherwise.
I think what happens most often is that, first, as you say, the father has educational custody of the children. Thus, he has the authority to get them to read the Quran. If they read the Quran they are going to do the shahada.
All it takes is one honest pronunciation of the shahada and they are muslim.
#11
There are lots of imponderables about Barry The Builder (Can we fix it?" "Yes we can" Obama (Including the ears)
I will preface by using the acronym AFAIK (as far as I know)
There is no disputing that Barack Hussein Obama was born a Muslim. He is the offspring of a polygamist Muslim father from Kenya and an atheistic communist mother. His Arabic birth name of Baraka came directly from the Koran, meaning blessing. His father, who married four wives without divorcing, later claimed to be atheist but his grandfather remained a devout Muslim in Kenya.
Now is having four wives the signature of an atheist?
As his father had not divorced his mother, there would not have been a "marriage" to her new " husband" who may or may not have been Obama's "stepfather".
The "family" moved to Jakarta where he spent the formative years of 6-10 in the devout Islamic nation. He attended a Muslim school, attended mosque, and was in fact reared as a Muslim.
There is no doubt that after returning to Hawaii Obama became a non practicing Muslim.
Under the stewardship of Wright became a Christian. Why did he abandon Islam and become a Muslim?
I've got an acquaintance a Muslim, who regularly attends a local ethnic Christian church. When I asked him why he as a Muslim went there, he said it was very good for making "business contacts"
All his Muslim friends knew what he was doing and it didn't faze any of them.
By Barry Rubin
While America's secretary of state devotes her time to doomed Israel-Palestinian talks and America goes ga-ga over a candidate whose entire foreign policy strategy is to talk to dictators, yet another crisis is empowering radical Islamists and undercutting Western friends and interests.
The Lebanese logjam has broken at last as Hizbullah seized Beirut and inflicted a major defeat on the government. Hizbullah is pulling a more limited version of Hamas's Gaza strategy in Lebanon as the world stands by.
Posted by: Fred ||
05/12/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under: Hezbollah
#1
Outside intervention in Lebanon won't happen because it is already too late. The only way out now is military force against Syria or Iran and that's not going to happen.
*"GAZA strategy ... as the world stands by" > IOW, DO NOTHING = ISLAMIST IRAN + RADICALISTS WILL LIKELY GET THEIR SHHHHHHHHHHHH STRATEGIC CAPABILITIES, ergo WORLD WILL ALOS LIKELY SEE RENEWED ALBEIT NUCLEAR JIHAD-TERROR AFTER 2012/13.
The Human Shield Movement has announced it reached its 10,000th pledge member. The lucky guy to sign on as a Human Shield Volunteer number ten thousand is Steven Morris from Birmingham. Morris has pledged to use his body as a human shield against an attack on Iran from neo-con President Bush.
Volunteers from 22 countries not from Iran have pledged to travel to the Middle Eastern country at a moments notice to place their human shields or in simpler terms, their bodies in front of civilian [quotes added by 2x4] infrastructure in Iran in order to prevent what they believe would be a catastrophic and unjustified attack from the warmonger President Bush. All the moonbats concentrated in the areas of a possible high level of mil activity... Any ambivalence? Nope. I'll take it! ;-)
They think they're going to shield the baby milk factory. Wait til they find out that the Mad Mullahs want them to shield the centrifuge facility ...
While we believe if there were to be such an attack it would be catastrophic, especially for the Human Shields, were not so sure it would be unjustified. We wondered if each of the Shields will be assigned large bold numbers for identification purposes if their worst case scenario is confirmed. We suggest each Human Shield also receive a form to fill out for future Honorary Darwin Awards.
Hard as it may be to imagine, a goodly proportion of the Shields have reproduced ...
As for their being able to travel to Iran at a moments notice, do these people have enough frequent flier miles so they wont have pay full price for an airline ticket? Or do they care, after all this will probably the last trip they ever take even though they believe their Human Shield plan of defense will deter any attack by President Bush and the United States against Iran.
A powerfully worded warning was sent to the White House while spokesman for the movement, David Tyler, said Traditional methods of protest are ineffective in the face of the neo-Con determination to implement their global vision.
As to why these people believe their lives are worth anything baffles us. Life is cheap, war is hell, and if Human Shields are worth a dime a dozen then you could buy the whole lot for under ten bucks.
#2
is this a some sort of retired jew cocksuckers internet meeting. hey juu fags 63 years ago we screw your grandmas. pretty soon will be fucking your doughters and scatting on your grandsons
you scum never learn nothing
2. If Mr. Human Shield is to be effective at shielding, it is only because he is counting on Chimpy W. Hitler, the bloodthirsty imperialist neocon tool of the international Zionazi-oil conspiracy, and the murderous mercenaries of the USofKKKA armed forces to hold their fire for fear of hitting him. That is, he's betting his life (literally) on the inherent decency of the "warmonger." Does that strike you as odd?
Posted by: Mike ||
05/12/2008 11:16 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Didn't they try this just before Iraq was invaded? I seem to recall the shields being furious when they were sent to guard military depots and such, given only pallets on the floor and cold sandwiches to eat. Didn't they all decamp for home in disgust just before the invasion?
#9
It'll last until they find out that there's no 5-star hotel with 24-hour catering outside the Nuke plant Baby Ducks Factory they are sent to 'defend'.
BTW: Most of these people are to self-centered to reproduce.
It should. But given the ability to handle standard fare of cognitive disonance by a common moonbat without even a headache or a recognition there may be something amiss, I am resigned to accept it as a moonbat trait.
But there is perhaps a slight subconscious hint within the moonbat's ...mind?... that not all is ok, so they seek to increase the odds for ending their miserable existence, thus driven to some sort of a bug zapper, as it were.
#13
Waaaaahaaaaaaaa! Chuckle, Chuckle and a tee hee. The "effective" Human Shield Movement flexes its muscles--So much bomb fodder. Wasn't Sean Penn part of this movement? Dopey Dupes. What's the downside of these idiots getting in the way of a bomb? Might improve the gene pool.
In the early 1960s the law of supply and demand greatly irked Cuba's minister of the economy Ernesto Che Guevara. No problemo! he decided one fine morning. I'll simply abolish it by creating a new man, with these insufferable Cubans as my Guinea Pigs.
The world's intelligentsia applauded deliriously as 14,000 Cubans were murdered by firing squad, 77,000 drowned or were ripped apart by sharks attempting to flee Guevara's whim, and half a million were herded into political prisons and forced labor camps at bayonet point. (All of this out of a Cuban population of 6.5 million meaning that Castro and Che's political incarceration rate topped Stalin's.)
And wouldn't you know it? After years of this glorious effort, cheered by everyone from Jean Paul Sartre to George Mc Govern and from Norman Mailer to Michael Moore, that doggone law of supply and demand held firm, while Cuba's per capita income (surpassing half of Europe's in the 1950s) plummeted to nudge Haiti's.
For fear of oil spills, as of 2008, the U.S. federal government and various states ban drilling in thousands upon thousands of square miles off the U.S. coast. These areas, primarily on the outer Continental Shelf, hold an estimated 115 billion barrels of oil and 633 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. This leaves America's energy needs increasingly at the mercy of foreign autocrats, despots, and maniacs. All the while worldwide demand for oil ratchets ever and ever upward.
At times you'd swear that Che Guevara's bloody lesson (not to mention Lenin, Mao, and Pol Pot's) has yet to sink in. Barack Obama, for instance, recently proposed a windfall profits tax on oil companies. Such "hope" that more federal looting of oil producers will lower prices is not "audacious", it is simply idiotic.
And that's only part of the idiocy. For those who favor evidence over dogma, a lesson in the environmental perils of offshore oil drilling presents itself every bit as starkly, though much less murderously. To wit: Of the roughly 3,700 offshore oil productions platforms in the Gulf of Mexico, roughly 3,200 lie off the Louisiana coast. Yet Louisiana produces one-third of America's commercial fisheries and no major oil spill has ever soiled its coast.
On the other hand, Florida ,which zealously prohibits offshore oil drilling, had its gorgeous Emerald Coast panhandle beaches soiled by an ugly oil spill in 1976. This spill, as almost all oil spills, resulted from the transportation of oil not from the extraction of oil.
Assuming such as Hugo Chavez deign to keep selling us oil, we'll need increasingly more and we'll need to keep transporting it stateside typically to refineries in Louisiana and Texas.
This path takes those tankers (as the one in 1976) smack in front of Florida's panhandle beaches. Recall the Valdez, the Cadiz, the Argo Merchant. These were all tanker spills. The production of oil is relatively clean and safe. Again, it's the transportation that presents the greatest risk. And even these spills (though hyped hysterically as environmental catastrophes) always play out as minor blips, those pictures of oil soaked seagulls notwithstanding.
To the horror and anguish of professional greenies, Alaska's Prince William Sound recovered completely. More birds get fried by landing on power lines and smashed to pulp against picture windows in one week than perished from three decades of oil spills.
But forget cheaper oil and less pollution for a second. All fishermen and scuba divers out there should plead with their states to open up offshore oil drilling posthaste. I refer to the fabulous fishing the explosion of marine life that accompanies the erection of offshore oil platforms.
"Environmentalists" wake up in the middle of the night sweating and whimpering about offshore oil platforms only because they've never seen what's under them. This proliferation of marine life around the platforms turned on its head every "environmental expert" opinion of its day.
The original plan, mandated by federal environmental "experts" back in the late '40s, was to remove the big, ugly, polluting, environmentally hazardous contraptions as soon as they stopped producing. Fine, said the oil companies.
About 15 years ago some wells played out off Louisiana and the oil companies tried to comply. Their ears are still ringing from the clamor fishermen put up. Turns out those platforms are going nowhere, and by popular demand of those with a bigger stake in the marine environment than any "environmentalist."
Every "environmental" superstition against these structures was turned on its head. Marine life had exploded around these huge artificial reefs: A study by LSU's Sea Grant college shows that 85 percent of Louisiana fishing trips involve fishing around these platforms. The same study shows that there's 50 times more marine life around an oil production platform than in the surrounding mud bottoms.
An environmental study (by apparently honest scientists) revealed that urban runoff and treated sewage dump 12 times the amount of petroleum into the Gulf than those thousands of oil production platforms. And oil seeping naturally through the ocean floor into the Gulf, where it dissipates over time, accounts for 7 times the amount spilled by rigs and pipelines in any given year.
The Flower Garden coral reefs lie off the Louisiana-Texas border. Unlike any of the Florida Keys reefs, they're surrounded by dozens of offshore oil platforms.
These have been pumping away for the past 50 years. Yet according to G.P. Schmahl, a federal biologist who worked for decades in both places, "The Flower Gardens are much healthier, more pristine than anything in the Florida Keys. It was a surprise to me," he admits. "And I think it's a surprise to most people."
"A key measure of the health of a reef is the amount of area taken up by coral," according to a report by Steve Gittings, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's science coordinator for marine sanctuaries. "Louisiana's Flower Garden boasts nearly 50 percent coral cover. In the Florida Keys it can run as little as 5 percent."
Mark Ferrulo, a Florida "environmental activist" uses the very example of Louisiana for his anti-offshore drilling campaign, calling Louisiana's coast "the nation's toilet."
Florida's fishing fleet must love fishing in toilets, and her restaurants serving what's in them. Most of the red snapper you eat in Florida restaurants are caught around Louisiana's oil platforms. We see the Florida-registered boats tied up to them constantly. Sometimes us locals can barely squeeze in.
America desperately needs more domestic oil. In the process of producing it, we'd also get a cheaper tab for broiled red snapper with crabmeat/shrimp topping.
Humberto Fontova is the author of "Exposing the Real Che Guevara and the Useful Idiots Who idolize Him." Visit www.hfontova.com.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
The Human Shield Movement has announced it reached its 10,000th pledge member. The lucky guy to sign on as a Human Shield Volunteer number ten thousand is Steven Morris from Birmingham. Morris has pledged to use his body as a human shield against an attack on Iran from neo-con President Bush.
