Thin-Skinned Religious Extremists

Freedom Go To Hell

Er.. Actually, the US only imports about 12 - 16% of its oil from the Middle East. Although we do import a lot, much of it comes from other sources: Venezuela, Mexico, Canada, SE Asia, The North Sea, and The Indian Ocean. The amount imported from the Middle East is significant because of the % of imports it represents – 28% of imports.

It is significant to note that this percentage has risen steadily since the 1970’s on the basis of relatively cheap foreign oil prices. In 1970 we imported 21.5% of our oil from overseas, by 1975 that had risen to 35.8%.

Due to the 1973 and 1978 oil crises, Congress and the Carter administration passed many conservation laws, including those on automotive fleet fuel consumption . The result was that by 1980 imports had slowed to roughly 38% of American consumption, and by 1985 those laws had reduced foreign imports to approximately 27.3% of national consumption.

In 1983/84 though R Regan made good on his campaign promises to the oil & gas, automotive, and energy industry’s. The Admin, with the help of congress eliminated all funding and subsidies for alternative energy R&D, eliminated most of the new rules on fuel consumption, and ‘deregulated’ the energy industry. Tens of thousands of people working in Alt E companies lost their jobs overnight, hitting the Rocky Mountain States and Denver in particular very hard.

The result was that although imports had dropped dramatically to 27.3 of national consumption by 1985, under the new ‘deregulation’ oil imports exploded to 42.2% of national consumption by 1990 and have been rising ever since.

Admittedly, much of this new increase in reliance on imports is directly attributable to the per capita increase in oil products usage across the board in the US. Usage that has more than quadrupled from 1975 to 2005, due to increases in personal and industrial consumption - much of which is directly attributable to deregulation of environmental and conservation standards such as higher vehicle consumption averages (SUV’s, Trucks), cutbacks in public transportation, and elimination of conservation incentives for industry.

We have been on a binge, but now it’s time to pay the check.

Where that leaves us is as the Major Player in the world, dependant on a commodity that does not belong to us. Either we force ourselves to become independent, or we allow whoever owns the oil to dictate terms to us.

If Iran gets a nuclear capability, then all bets are off. Why? Because they will use it the first time the mullahs get miffed. The Europe and the US will of course retaliate, and the Middle East will dissolve into chaos for the next 200 years.

The only way to avoid a crushing economic blow then is to do the R&D and conserve now. But that will never happen under a Bush Administration – Look at the half assed energy proposals he unveiled the day after the State of the Union Speech.


Rob

OK, that's twice in one thread MIB! Definitely one of the seven signs of the apocalypse. Get your affairs in order gentlemen. The end of the world is nigh! eek!

Even a broken clock is right twice a day you know.

Commentator Fred Barnes makes a good point:

Well duh!!

This is what happens when you attempt to import democracy into a region whose culture is NOT, NOT, NOT amenable to democracy. The Islamic religion is not one that practices democratic institutions. There is NO, NO, NO separation between church and state. The SAME people who run the church run the state. Law and order comes in the form of the Shari'a -- religious law. Attempting to bring western institutions to people who simply don't WANT them has gotten us into a LOT of trouble in that area.

They believe in freedom of speech as long as it's in the Koran. And that cartoon did the ONE thing that Muslims consider blasphemous -- it projected an image of Muhammad. If you look among the writings, images, and all of the Islamic religion, you do NOT see pictures of Muhammad. None.

Check out this CNN story on the cartoon controversy -- especially the italicized words at the bottom:

Question: Has CNN ever chosen to censor the news "out of respect for" a religion before now?

Interesting that CNN didn't feel it necessary to stop the publication of this image of Mary "out of respect for" Christians. Nor did it withhold this image "out of respect for" Israelis.

Right you are, MIB! I'd like someone to "explain me" why the Muslims, who claim to honor Christ as a prophet, weren't up in arms over "Piss Christ," but are now highly pissed over "Bomb Brained Muhammed?"

My own response: BUY DANISH! I'm actively serarching the aisles now for Danola ham, butter cookies, Havarti cheese and whatever else comes from the plucky peninsula.* See you in Solvang! :cool:
_____
*But I draw the line - usually vertical - at buying Danish modern furniture. I'm more a Craftsman kinda guy. wink

So then I won't see you shopping at IKEA? Oh, wait--wrong country.

LOL, MIB; "those Scandinavians all look alike!" wink

So does their furniture, so no IKEA for me in my lifetime!

I personally don't feel sorry for them. Many religious symbols and figures have been disrespected, what's special about mohammed? I do think the Danish paper should have shown some common sense, especially during these times but I support their right to publish what they want.

personally I feel we have the freedom of speech...so to show mohammed in a cartoon is our choice. They burn our flags, etc.

The Danish paper, Jyllands-Posten, is a known right-wing outfit that was seeking to provoke Muslims. They refused to publish a cartoon making fun of Christ. They knew exactly what they were doing.

That doesn't mitigate the fact that Muslims worldwide shouldn't be rioting and burning and killing, but let's also not forget the role of government and religious officials in some of these countries in stoking the anger of people. Supposedly far more offensive anti-Muslim cartoons that were not originally published are now being circulated (by whom?) around the Muslim world, which is leading some Muslims to grow even more enraged. The Lebanese government has even claimed that agents of Syria were behind the torching of the Danish embassy in Beirut.

So the situation is not as simple as it's being made out to be.

Have you heard the latest? Kinda Sleezy Rice is now criticizing Iran and Syria for keepin' the flames of discontent a-burnin', literally. I heard a publication in Iran is now going to publish cartoons making fun of the Holocaust. What a bunch of idiots. I feel sorry for those of the Muslim faith that are not nut-jobs. There has to be some of them out there, somewhere.

Bingo. Therein lies the crux of the problem. They go directly from defenders of the faith (freedom of speech) to westernized hypocrites without stopping at GO.

Until they correct that problem they have ZERO credibility either in the western world or especially the Muslim one - extremely sad status.

And some of the biggest hypocrites? The New York Press, of course. We now have NY outlets who won't publish a cartoon they deem "offensive" to Islam, but they go right ahead and publish caricatures of the Virgin Mary with elephant dung, or even vile crap like this.

[ February 09, 2006, 11:48 AM: Message edited by: MIB ]

Well, apparently one of the papers with the cojones to publish the cartoons is the U of I's student paper, the Daily Illini. That's pretty gutsy on a campus that has a sizeable muslim population.

It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that certain things in the middle east are completely, well, WACK!

After all, these are people who still fire AK47s into the air at weddings and celebrations. What part of "what comes up must come down" don't people get? It's irresponsible and stupid.

In the same way, standing behind a bunch of cartoons is irresponsible and stupid. We all know the middle east feels Islam is under attack, and pictoral representations of Mohammud are a HUGE NO-NO. Has anyone ever been to a mosque? Or a synagogue for that matter? All the decoration is in ornate design, NOT in pictures of people, phrophets or events. THAT'S BECAUSE IT"S CONSIDERED BLASPHEMOUS.

Sure, we can claim free speech all we like, and we'd be right. But like it or not, actions have consequences. Hardline clerics are going to whip up the people, who have a tradition of being, as I said before, WACK, and people are going to die. Is this the fault of the cleric, cartoonist, paper, or idiots who go into the street to trample each other? Does it matter? You fire bullets into the air in order to make a big noise, and sooner or later somebody gets killed. I suppose if you like the big noise and have a gun, it's your call.

Uh oh. How long until the NCAA steps in and bans Illinois from something else over this?

We missed a golden opportunity when we did not make more cultural overtures toward Iran while this man was in power.

But the Western countries involved--mainly the European ones--haven't taken a "strong stance." Instead, they've supported the Danish newspaper and reiterated their support of freedom of the press in general. So does that mean more violence against these countries? Hmmm.

Great piece in the WSJ about the intra-Islamic conflict captured in the cartoon controversy. Link to op-ed.

How many of us speak openly to the person who signs our paycheck about unethical conduct, by same person, that we have witnessed?

Certainly there are some who have found the courage to do so but they have generally been sent, like Khatami, looking for another job.

If more of us did so, we might live in a society in which true free speech made for a better society. For now defying power has consequences.

We are taught to hate.

Prepare for round two as Sandi Dubowsky's \"In the Name of Allah\", about homosexuality among Muslims is released to enter the film festival circuit.

Homophobia is the real achilles heal of fundamentalists IMO. They can try to legislate practice in complex impersonal matters like evolution, but the very personal phenomenom of inate sexual orientation endures against all law.

Iran has gone all "freedom fries" on Danish pastries. They're now "Roses of the Prophet Mohammed."

[ February 16, 2006, 12:45 PM: Message edited by: fenwayguy ]

What could be more homoerotic than nibbling on Mohammed's roses?

I read somewhere that a large amount of the world's insulin supply comes from Denmark (not that I care, I grow my own), but with that icky sweet crap some Middle Easterners like to eat so much, they really need to be careful about what they boycott.

OK - that does it... I have kept silent on this one for long enough .

Will somebody finally edit the title of this thread...

Maybe 'France and Denmark enrage...' or 'France and the Danes enrage...' or 'French and Danes enrage...'.

Every time (now especially) I see this damn thread title I visualize some Arab being outraged at his poor defensless cheese danish that somehow managed to tick him off... or an Ayatollah declaring Fatwah on some apple danish that has managed to insult him at the breakfast table (maybe it wassn't saying morning prayers correctly - maybe it was just a kosher danish from NYC).

Enough already!

R

[ February 16, 2006, 03:09 PM: Message edited by: ITJock ]

The mods don't edit stuff in the P&R section, so that leaves it solely up to me, the thread's original creator.

You'd really like that changed, though, wouldn't you?

Actually, I've found the thread's title annoying from the moment I saw it, and every time since. So that's at least two of us. If English is not your first language, then I figure you are entitled to make all the mistakes you need to. If English IS your first language, however, and you want to voice your opinions, chances are that if you make stupid mistakes such as talking about all those danishes... well, you risk being seen as, excuse me, stupid.

And don't get me started on people who can't figure out the words their, there, and they're.

GRRR. :mad: :mad:

Some people are just way to anal.

That would be way TOO anal.

And what was it I said about risking being seen as stupid?

And like you never make a typo, either. I'm quite aware when "too" is used and when "to" is.

Move along.

Well, isn't this just peachy...

$1 million bounty put on head of cartoonist.

Kinda reminds one of the ole fatwa on Rushdie.

[ February 18, 2006, 12:00 AM: Message edited by: MIB ]

Clinton embarrasses himself in Pakistan: "I strongly disagreed with both the creation and the publication of cartoons that were considered blasphemous to devout Muslims around the world because they depicted the Prophet."

Leaving aside the fact that the prohibition on depiction of Mohammed is by no means as clear-cut as Clinton pretends to think, we have to deal with the fact that Clinton believes that images that "offend" the beliefs of one religious faith should not even be created, let alone published.

And they call Pat Robertson intolerant?

And then there’s this:

"But I would not be surprised if the person who drew those cartoons and the newspaper publisher who decided to print them did not even know that it was considered blasphemous to have any kind of personal depiction of the Prophet to Muslims."

Oh good grief. If Clinton has read any newspapers on this subject (and if he hasn’t, could he please shut up about the whole topic) he would know that Jyllands-Posten published the cartoons specifically to test the extent to which the beliefs of one religious faith were being imposed upon others.

And do we get from Clinton any suggestion that the rioters, thugs and bullies who have defaced the name of Islam in the course of the cartoon wars should apologize? No we don’t. If anything, Clinton’s implication is that it is the West that should be apologizing, and that publication of what he calls "blasphemy" was unacceptable.

That’s wrong. No collection of beliefs, even if they do involve a deity, should be given special privileges and protections. And, Bill, if someone's free speech is your blasphemy, that’s just tough.

Get over it.