Accoring to the latest polls, Americans are losing confidence in Obama. I wonder if a significant portion isn't progressives. Frankly, I’m getting a little pissed. He needs to stand up to the lying obstructionists and push through health care reform.
I’m really sick of these political fuck-tards, Nazi sign carriers and Fox News detractors. I can’t see how you could stand for the American people and deny healthcare reform. Insurance premiums double in four years. This is A-okay with the Republicans politicians and a ton of brainwashed Americans. We’re paying through the nose for the uninsured. This is just great with the Republicans. Heathcare will continue to eat up our budgets, and this if just fine with the Blue Dogs. I’ve never seen a more obvious sucking up to corporations. They’re laughing at you all while taking their record profits to the bank. They’ve successfully brainwashed you and bought you. Isn’t American about the people, not the companies?
Half of the dissenters say we don’t need healthcare reform at all. They got theirs already, so to hell with the rest (apparently they’re so rich they don’t care that their premiums go up 25% a year). The other half lies about how they want to see “responsible reform.” We see these commercials paid for by the insurance industry talking about “healthcare reform the right way.” Do they think we’re stupid? Co-ops are “the right way?” Co-ops are a freaking joke, another distraction. “Litigation is the only problem” they say. Yup, if we just stopped those pesky lawyers our healthcare system would be perfect! How can anyone defend the insurance industry? Listen folks, the free market doesn’t work in this case. The incentive is to screw hard working Americans out of healthcare they’re entitled to. They get raises and promotions for denying coverage. Apparently the Republicans think this is really cool! How in the world can you defend this? There’s no competition now. Companies collude with each other like small town gas stations, they don’t compete against each other. This is just great to the “no healthcare reform” crowd.
Don’t even get me started about idiots ranting about “gov’mnt control” or “socialism” while they pick up Social Security checks and get Medicare. I’d like to detach you completely from the “socialist” teat and see how loud you scream. Take your freaking kids out of our “socialist” schools and put your own house out when it catches on fire while you’re at it.
Some of the Dems are just as bad. These politicians are bought and paid for, straight up. I am interested in hearing what the insurance companies would like out of this bill. I’m interested because that should be exactly what we DON’T do. These guys are laughing to the bank while Americans die.
A few weeks ago I supported slowing down to listen to concerns and try to reach an acceptable compromise. Well I’m done with that. Time to punish the liars and thugs. I’m looking forward to the day when we pass serious much-needed healthcare reform in this country and all the nuts get so mad they can’t sleep.
I was hoping a good hate-filled rant would make me feel better, but it’s not. I can’t even read the Denver Post forums anymore or I get upset. Obama, get this done, chief.
Friday, August 21, 2009
Saturday, August 15, 2009
The War in Afghanistan
To “win” in Afghanistan, we must win over the people.
To understand this conflict and why the Taliban is having success in Afghanistan we must walk in the shoes (or sandals) of an average Afghani. Before the Taliban, Afghanistan was run by multiple clans, which operated like gangs. They set up checkpoints and took what they wanted—whether money, your daughter or your life—from Afghani citizens by force. There was no law and no justice. As you can imagine, for your average Afghani, anything was better than this.
So then the Taliban rolled in town and cleaned thing up. They set up a justice system, and even if sharia is tough and often sick by our standards, it was at least consistent and relatively free of corruption. People had recourse against assailants, there was some semblance of order. Gone were checkpoints and many citizens of Afghanistan were finally free of the violent gangs. The Taliban opened schools, and although girls couldn’t go and the curriculum was very strict Islamic teachings, at least it was better than no schools at all.
So again, to understand, walk in their shoes. They don’t “follow” the Taliban because they hate America. The average poor Afghani doesn’t give a fart about America. They care about their herd of goats, their garden, and feeding and schooling their children. Taliban provided these things when no one else would.
We cannot win Afghanistan without providing these things for the Afghani people. Dissolving the Taliban is one goal, but the second goal has to be to create a working government in Afghanistan that can provide security and other basic needs for the people. If we don’t some other radical group will.
The people will define success our in Afghanistan. If America shows them we can help provide for their basic needs, they might just help us take their country back from the Taliban. This is not an easy task, as Afghanis have always distained outsiders. However, if we bomb them and do the Dick Cheney “just kill them” thing, they will side with the Taliban in droves. With only a relatively small number of troops in Afghanistan the last few years, we didn’t have the troops we needed to invade villages, kill the bad guys but spare the innocent women and children. Instead we bombed them, and although we surely had some success, the collateral damage was hurting our cause. When Americans are killing more civilians than the Taliban, it’s no wonder why the people were still siding with the bad guys.
Many experts that know Afghanistan much better than me or anyone else on this forum think we’re best off pulling out of the country altogether. While I don’t agree, I see their point that an armed outside presence in Afghanistan has a real danger of pushing more people over to the Taliban. I think our approach to Afghanistan now is a pretty decent balance of kicking bad guy butt while trying to win over the people. But the worst possible thing we could do now is to take the gloves off. They will remember and they will NEVER be on our side. Now, instead of being a bit cold to America, they’ll make it their mission to kill us for generations and generations.
It's never as simple as just killing bad guys, and we have to think through this enough to ensure long term success and the best outcome for America's interests.
To understand this conflict and why the Taliban is having success in Afghanistan we must walk in the shoes (or sandals) of an average Afghani. Before the Taliban, Afghanistan was run by multiple clans, which operated like gangs. They set up checkpoints and took what they wanted—whether money, your daughter or your life—from Afghani citizens by force. There was no law and no justice. As you can imagine, for your average Afghani, anything was better than this.
So then the Taliban rolled in town and cleaned thing up. They set up a justice system, and even if sharia is tough and often sick by our standards, it was at least consistent and relatively free of corruption. People had recourse against assailants, there was some semblance of order. Gone were checkpoints and many citizens of Afghanistan were finally free of the violent gangs. The Taliban opened schools, and although girls couldn’t go and the curriculum was very strict Islamic teachings, at least it was better than no schools at all.
So again, to understand, walk in their shoes. They don’t “follow” the Taliban because they hate America. The average poor Afghani doesn’t give a fart about America. They care about their herd of goats, their garden, and feeding and schooling their children. Taliban provided these things when no one else would.
We cannot win Afghanistan without providing these things for the Afghani people. Dissolving the Taliban is one goal, but the second goal has to be to create a working government in Afghanistan that can provide security and other basic needs for the people. If we don’t some other radical group will.
The people will define success our in Afghanistan. If America shows them we can help provide for their basic needs, they might just help us take their country back from the Taliban. This is not an easy task, as Afghanis have always distained outsiders. However, if we bomb them and do the Dick Cheney “just kill them” thing, they will side with the Taliban in droves. With only a relatively small number of troops in Afghanistan the last few years, we didn’t have the troops we needed to invade villages, kill the bad guys but spare the innocent women and children. Instead we bombed them, and although we surely had some success, the collateral damage was hurting our cause. When Americans are killing more civilians than the Taliban, it’s no wonder why the people were still siding with the bad guys.
Many experts that know Afghanistan much better than me or anyone else on this forum think we’re best off pulling out of the country altogether. While I don’t agree, I see their point that an armed outside presence in Afghanistan has a real danger of pushing more people over to the Taliban. I think our approach to Afghanistan now is a pretty decent balance of kicking bad guy butt while trying to win over the people. But the worst possible thing we could do now is to take the gloves off. They will remember and they will NEVER be on our side. Now, instead of being a bit cold to America, they’ll make it their mission to kill us for generations and generations.
It's never as simple as just killing bad guys, and we have to think through this enough to ensure long term success and the best outcome for America's interests.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Gates Gate
This whole Gates thing is making me mad. I'm raving pissed at Glenn Beck and other media prostitutes who are taking this chance to make ludicrous charges about Obama being racist. But I'm also pretty darn angry at Prof Gates.
At first I thought for sure this was profiling by the 911 caller, as well as the policeman. I thought this was the situation: An elderly, well dressed black man with a cane and a professional driver were fiddling with a key in their front door. Anyone who would call the police in that situation are racial profilers, little doubt of that.
Turns out that wasn’t the situation at all. Gates and his driver actually broke the screen door down to get inside. And when I heard the actual 911 call, I was downright embarrassed. Here’s a transcript of the call. and here’s the audio recording. (If this link doesn't work you can Google it. It's worth hearing). This lady is obviously calling out of concern. She acknowledges that the men might be residents, but says she thought she would call just in case. When asked by the 911 operator what the men’s races were, she didn’t even know. She thought one might have been Hispanic. How could she be profiling if she didn’t even know their races at all?
Of course, an critical point is that Crowley still made a mistake in arresting Gates. He had no grounds to do so, which is why the charges were dropped. He should have just walked away. However, I now see that it is extremely unlikely Crowley or the caller were racist. We later heard about how Crowley taught his coworkers about racial profiling. That doesn't exonerate him, but it does make it more unlikely that he would treat Gates differently. I find myself thinking the only one thinking about race in the whole issue was Gates. He acted very badly. I'm sure he was very tired from getting back from China and wasn't in the mood to be confronted, but that's no excuse. I think Crowley was offended at being called a racist and his ego was wounded and he made the wrong call by taking Gates in. But this was more of a cop power trip than racist. It's a "how dare you talk to ME like that" moment. Guess maybe there's a chance he wouldn't have taken him in if he were white, I just can't see a shred of evidence.
And I wish Obama would have kept his thoughts to himself on this one. In a press conference early this year on something I can’t remember, someone asked him why he hadn’t condemned some action earlier. He said “I like to know what I’m talking about before I speak.” He should have taken his own advice on this one. Could be the first blunder Obama's made.
I'm angry at Gates because there's no doubt racial profiling is a significant problem in America. But now by "crying wolf" he's decreased the credibility of minorities that are profiled. Now these idiot rednecks in Colorado think every time someone shouts racial profiling, it's another Gates Gate. Plus he's given the right more fodder in their race bating antics. He owes the black community an apology for that. Anyway, I just hope this whole thing goes away now.
At first I thought for sure this was profiling by the 911 caller, as well as the policeman. I thought this was the situation: An elderly, well dressed black man with a cane and a professional driver were fiddling with a key in their front door. Anyone who would call the police in that situation are racial profilers, little doubt of that.
Turns out that wasn’t the situation at all. Gates and his driver actually broke the screen door down to get inside. And when I heard the actual 911 call, I was downright embarrassed. Here’s a transcript of the call. and here’s the audio recording. (If this link doesn't work you can Google it. It's worth hearing). This lady is obviously calling out of concern. She acknowledges that the men might be residents, but says she thought she would call just in case. When asked by the 911 operator what the men’s races were, she didn’t even know. She thought one might have been Hispanic. How could she be profiling if she didn’t even know their races at all?
Of course, an critical point is that Crowley still made a mistake in arresting Gates. He had no grounds to do so, which is why the charges were dropped. He should have just walked away. However, I now see that it is extremely unlikely Crowley or the caller were racist. We later heard about how Crowley taught his coworkers about racial profiling. That doesn't exonerate him, but it does make it more unlikely that he would treat Gates differently. I find myself thinking the only one thinking about race in the whole issue was Gates. He acted very badly. I'm sure he was very tired from getting back from China and wasn't in the mood to be confronted, but that's no excuse. I think Crowley was offended at being called a racist and his ego was wounded and he made the wrong call by taking Gates in. But this was more of a cop power trip than racist. It's a "how dare you talk to ME like that" moment. Guess maybe there's a chance he wouldn't have taken him in if he were white, I just can't see a shred of evidence.
And I wish Obama would have kept his thoughts to himself on this one. In a press conference early this year on something I can’t remember, someone asked him why he hadn’t condemned some action earlier. He said “I like to know what I’m talking about before I speak.” He should have taken his own advice on this one. Could be the first blunder Obama's made.
I'm angry at Gates because there's no doubt racial profiling is a significant problem in America. But now by "crying wolf" he's decreased the credibility of minorities that are profiled. Now these idiot rednecks in Colorado think every time someone shouts racial profiling, it's another Gates Gate. Plus he's given the right more fodder in their race bating antics. He owes the black community an apology for that. Anyway, I just hope this whole thing goes away now.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Top 10 hip-hop/rap albums of all time
Not necessarily the biggest, or the most influential or important, just my personal favorites. No particular order, but the first 5 are pretty clearly in the top tier
First teir
1. The Roots: Things Fall Apart (1999). Brilliant. The Roots are an amazing group, and although the earlier Illadelph Halflife and the later The Tipping Point are also must haves, Things Fall Apart is nothing short of a hip hop work of art. The beautiful You Got Me made me an Erykah Badu fan, I love the hard-hitting 100% Dundee, the dark Step Into the Realm, but the best tune on the album might be a little collaborative ditty with Mos Def called Double Trouble. So “either stand tall or sit the fuck down.”
2. The Beastie Boys: Check your Head (1992). This album would make my Top 10 Albums of All Time list. Creative, unique, and fun as hell, Check Your Head is a masterpiece. We could see a shift to the more creative side with Paul’s Boutique, but in this album, the Beasties jumped in with both feet and made a huge splash in the hip hop ocean.
3. Notorious B.I.G.: Ready to Die (1994). Hard, tight, and oozing with skill. Biggie Small’s first was his best. Or should I say techniques. Let Biggie say it himself: “I got techniques drippin’ out my butt cheeks/sleep on my stomach so I don’t fuck up my sheets.” And: “No spouse in the house so she rode for self/to the hospital, to see if she could get a little help/Umbilical cord's wrapped around my neck/I'm seein' my death and I ain't even took my first step/I made it out, I'm bringin' mad joy/The doctor looked and said, ‘He's gonna be a Bad Boy’.”
4. 2-Pac: Strictly 4 my N.I.G.G.A.Z. (1993). An early 2-Pac album, and his best by far. It’s his best writing, best beats, and instead of half the songs on the album being good, they all are. It contains some lighter fare such as Keep Ya Head Up, some of his hardest songs, like the title track, and the very personal personal Papa’z Son.
5. A Tribe Called Quest: Midnight Marauders (1993). I saw A Tribe Called Quest play at Lollapalooza ’94, right after this album came out. They caught my attention right away. I went out and bought this album, then everything they put out before and after this. Some Tribe fans might prefer Low End Theory (1991) but I think there are more stellar tracks on Marauders. This is quintessential east coast hip hop, and it’s the best New York City has to offer.
Second tier
6. Dr. Dre: The Chronic (1992). A hugely famous album that put gangster rap on the map. The beats are top-notch and the lyrics are scathing. I love Snoop’s work on this album.
7. Black Eyed Peas: Elephunk (2004). The earlier Bridging the Gap is also a great BEP album, and my first BEP album. And although Elephunk enjoyed much more success and is a bit more radio-friendly (which I usually don’t like), I still have to give it the edge as the best BEP album. Hip hop doesn’t get any more fun than this group. The emergence of Fergi on this album is great, and the back and forth between her and Will.I.Am on tracks like Shut Up really works. But what really make Elephunk a truly great the beats. Just play the title track and crank it up, cause “If it smells like funk it must be us.” My only top 10 album from the 21st century, it’s not hard to tell which decade was the best for hip hop.
8. Wu-Tang Clan: Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers) (1993). A great collaborative effort from some brilliant vocalists, including Old Dirty Bastard and Method Man, Wu-Tang was a great contribution to east coast rap.
9. The Fugees: The Score (1996). You gutta love Lauryn Hill and Wyclef Jean in the same group. Lauryn had the voice, and Wyclef could write with the best. I love the reggae feel and the Sly and Robbie mix of Fu-Gee-La could be the sickest track on the album.
10. Ice-T: O.G. Original Gangster (1991). This probably won’t make most folks top 10, but it has a special meaning for me. When I went to college in 1992, I was a huge metal fan but didn’t get into rap. Then my black suite-mate turned me on to a band called Body Count, Ice-T’s hard core effort. I loved it, and went out and bought O.G. I then proceeded to blast the album to my entire hall at all ours. IT was all over--I was a hip hop fan for life. There are many great songs on this album, such as Bitches and New Jack Hustler, but my favorite track is one of the hardest rap songs every put out: Midnight.
First teir
1. The Roots: Things Fall Apart (1999). Brilliant. The Roots are an amazing group, and although the earlier Illadelph Halflife and the later The Tipping Point are also must haves, Things Fall Apart is nothing short of a hip hop work of art. The beautiful You Got Me made me an Erykah Badu fan, I love the hard-hitting 100% Dundee, the dark Step Into the Realm, but the best tune on the album might be a little collaborative ditty with Mos Def called Double Trouble. So “either stand tall or sit the fuck down.”
2. The Beastie Boys: Check your Head (1992). This album would make my Top 10 Albums of All Time list. Creative, unique, and fun as hell, Check Your Head is a masterpiece. We could see a shift to the more creative side with Paul’s Boutique, but in this album, the Beasties jumped in with both feet and made a huge splash in the hip hop ocean.
3. Notorious B.I.G.: Ready to Die (1994). Hard, tight, and oozing with skill. Biggie Small’s first was his best. Or should I say techniques. Let Biggie say it himself: “I got techniques drippin’ out my butt cheeks/sleep on my stomach so I don’t fuck up my sheets.” And: “No spouse in the house so she rode for self/to the hospital, to see if she could get a little help/Umbilical cord's wrapped around my neck/I'm seein' my death and I ain't even took my first step/I made it out, I'm bringin' mad joy/The doctor looked and said, ‘He's gonna be a Bad Boy’.”
4. 2-Pac: Strictly 4 my N.I.G.G.A.Z. (1993). An early 2-Pac album, and his best by far. It’s his best writing, best beats, and instead of half the songs on the album being good, they all are. It contains some lighter fare such as Keep Ya Head Up, some of his hardest songs, like the title track, and the very personal personal Papa’z Son.
5. A Tribe Called Quest: Midnight Marauders (1993). I saw A Tribe Called Quest play at Lollapalooza ’94, right after this album came out. They caught my attention right away. I went out and bought this album, then everything they put out before and after this. Some Tribe fans might prefer Low End Theory (1991) but I think there are more stellar tracks on Marauders. This is quintessential east coast hip hop, and it’s the best New York City has to offer.
Second tier
6. Dr. Dre: The Chronic (1992). A hugely famous album that put gangster rap on the map. The beats are top-notch and the lyrics are scathing. I love Snoop’s work on this album.
7. Black Eyed Peas: Elephunk (2004). The earlier Bridging the Gap is also a great BEP album, and my first BEP album. And although Elephunk enjoyed much more success and is a bit more radio-friendly (which I usually don’t like), I still have to give it the edge as the best BEP album. Hip hop doesn’t get any more fun than this group. The emergence of Fergi on this album is great, and the back and forth between her and Will.I.Am on tracks like Shut Up really works. But what really make Elephunk a truly great the beats. Just play the title track and crank it up, cause “If it smells like funk it must be us.” My only top 10 album from the 21st century, it’s not hard to tell which decade was the best for hip hop.
8. Wu-Tang Clan: Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers) (1993). A great collaborative effort from some brilliant vocalists, including Old Dirty Bastard and Method Man, Wu-Tang was a great contribution to east coast rap.
9. The Fugees: The Score (1996). You gutta love Lauryn Hill and Wyclef Jean in the same group. Lauryn had the voice, and Wyclef could write with the best. I love the reggae feel and the Sly and Robbie mix of Fu-Gee-La could be the sickest track on the album.
10. Ice-T: O.G. Original Gangster (1991). This probably won’t make most folks top 10, but it has a special meaning for me. When I went to college in 1992, I was a huge metal fan but didn’t get into rap. Then my black suite-mate turned me on to a band called Body Count, Ice-T’s hard core effort. I loved it, and went out and bought O.G. I then proceeded to blast the album to my entire hall at all ours. IT was all over--I was a hip hop fan for life. There are many great songs on this album, such as Bitches and New Jack Hustler, but my favorite track is one of the hardest rap songs every put out: Midnight.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Is conservation alone enough?
A few issues ago, High Country News printed an op-ed by Sarah Gilman called For the Love of Wastelands.
In this piece, Gilman argues that all land has value, and those values would be at risk to development of alternative energy resources, whether solar, wind, or other. She ends by advocating that we look for renewable opportunities in areas such as abandoned mines and alfalfa fields and ends with this paragraph:
Make no mistake about it: conservation alone is no silver bullet. Yes, conservation is often overlooked in favor of supply-side solutions. Yes, huge gains can be made through energy efficiency programs. I fully agree and support energy conservation efforts—in fact, some conservation should be made mandatory. However, we can’t fantasize away energy impacts by thinking all we need to do is conserve more. If we as a nation are really concerned about curbing our use of fossil fuels—a monumentally important direction for us to take—we need to have a serious discussion of where renewable energy projects and their associated infrastructure could be placed.
Let me be clear: conservation should be goal #1. We can instate some mileage/emission standards like Obama is asking. We beef up efficiency standards for new appliances and new houses. This won't be easy politically, but it is possible. Somewhat more problematic is a gas tax and carbon tax. Until we take money out of politics, lobbyists are going to make this politically difficult (not to mention the problem that politicians pushing these important laws will likely face tough times getting reelected). But for the sake of argument, let's assume we can do that too.
Even with the strongest efficiency standards in place, we won't be able to force everyone to conserve. There are still existing houses and buildings that won't meet standards and it's hard/impossible to force existing building owners to meet new standards. There are existing vehicles, and there will always be the freedom to drive to work if you want. I hope we drive prices of fossil fuel based energy through the roof, but there will always be gluttons who can pay those prices. Too much conservation is optional and always will be.
Fossil fuels currently supply 85 percent of the primary energy consumed in the United States. So how in the world can we conserve enough to not need more alternative energy than we have currently?
I agree we should look for places such as abandoned mine sites and alfalfa fields first, and although it’s a great goal, it’s naive to think we can “find ways to develop large-scale renewable energy plants and transmission without sacrificing landscapes.” A HCN issue or two ago there was an informative piece about resisting solar projects in the Mojave Desert. Of course, there are important ecological values there. Now we have a writer telling us there is even ecological value in “wastelands,” and of course Sarah’s right too. This is my point: nearly every single place has value and every single proposal will be in someone’s backyard and will be opposed and probably litigated by someone.
As environmentalists, we need to sit down at the table and play a CONSTRUCTIVE role in deciding where the best places are to build our new renewable energy system. Opposing every alternative energy project is obstruction, not constructive discussion. When environmental interests merely veto every renewable project, it has disastrous consequences for our world: We simply fall back on the same destructive fossil fuels we currently have in place. Resist solar development? More coal gets burnt. Resist a transmission line for wind energy from Wyoming to Vegas? More oil gets burnt.
I don’t like energy impacts any more than anyone else, but if we want to get serious about a clean energy future, we need to accept some impacts. It’s going to be fascinating, a little frustrating and a little encouraging watching America transform to green energy in the next decades.
In this piece, Gilman argues that all land has value, and those values would be at risk to development of alternative energy resources, whether solar, wind, or other. She ends by advocating that we look for renewable opportunities in areas such as abandoned mines and alfalfa fields and ends with this paragraph:
Those are the kinds of alternatives we should exhaust before we move on to industrializing our "empty" spaces. But there's another approach we seldom even discuss: Why not simply use less energy?
Make no mistake about it: conservation alone is no silver bullet. Yes, conservation is often overlooked in favor of supply-side solutions. Yes, huge gains can be made through energy efficiency programs. I fully agree and support energy conservation efforts—in fact, some conservation should be made mandatory. However, we can’t fantasize away energy impacts by thinking all we need to do is conserve more. If we as a nation are really concerned about curbing our use of fossil fuels—a monumentally important direction for us to take—we need to have a serious discussion of where renewable energy projects and their associated infrastructure could be placed.
Let me be clear: conservation should be goal #1. We can instate some mileage/emission standards like Obama is asking. We beef up efficiency standards for new appliances and new houses. This won't be easy politically, but it is possible. Somewhat more problematic is a gas tax and carbon tax. Until we take money out of politics, lobbyists are going to make this politically difficult (not to mention the problem that politicians pushing these important laws will likely face tough times getting reelected). But for the sake of argument, let's assume we can do that too.
Even with the strongest efficiency standards in place, we won't be able to force everyone to conserve. There are still existing houses and buildings that won't meet standards and it's hard/impossible to force existing building owners to meet new standards. There are existing vehicles, and there will always be the freedom to drive to work if you want. I hope we drive prices of fossil fuel based energy through the roof, but there will always be gluttons who can pay those prices. Too much conservation is optional and always will be.
Fossil fuels currently supply 85 percent of the primary energy consumed in the United States. So how in the world can we conserve enough to not need more alternative energy than we have currently?
I agree we should look for places such as abandoned mine sites and alfalfa fields first, and although it’s a great goal, it’s naive to think we can “find ways to develop large-scale renewable energy plants and transmission without sacrificing landscapes.” A HCN issue or two ago there was an informative piece about resisting solar projects in the Mojave Desert. Of course, there are important ecological values there. Now we have a writer telling us there is even ecological value in “wastelands,” and of course Sarah’s right too. This is my point: nearly every single place has value and every single proposal will be in someone’s backyard and will be opposed and probably litigated by someone.
As environmentalists, we need to sit down at the table and play a CONSTRUCTIVE role in deciding where the best places are to build our new renewable energy system. Opposing every alternative energy project is obstruction, not constructive discussion. When environmental interests merely veto every renewable project, it has disastrous consequences for our world: We simply fall back on the same destructive fossil fuels we currently have in place. Resist solar development? More coal gets burnt. Resist a transmission line for wind energy from Wyoming to Vegas? More oil gets burnt.
I don’t like energy impacts any more than anyone else, but if we want to get serious about a clean energy future, we need to accept some impacts. It’s going to be fascinating, a little frustrating and a little encouraging watching America transform to green energy in the next decades.
Friday, June 5, 2009
Has Radical Islam Defeated Moderate Islam?
There’s little doubt that over the last 10 or more years, in the fight within Islam, the extremists are winning. There’s more anti-Christian and anti-Semitic rhetoric coming out of Muslim communities than ever before. Wahhabi Islam (the extreme, ulta-conservative Sunni brand of Islam radiating from Saudi Arabia) interests have spent a lot of money spreading violent Islam to many corners of the globe. They pay for insurgents to travel to Iraq and blow themselves up. They pay for teachers to set up brainwashing schools in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The more radical Hamas won popular elections in Gaza. Some of this is due to US policies, but I’m not naïve enough to maintain that if we went out of our way to appease the Islamic community that they would stop hating us. So, is the war within Islam over? Have the people and their leaders decided? I sure hope not. I think a good case can be made that the fight is not over and that the underdog moderate Islam has a chance to come back in coming decades.
As with many issues, I look first at the people on the ground that drive such a shift. In the case of people moving in the direction of Wahhabism, it’s not like the people in Islamic communities are actually selecting radical "desert Islam" over more tolerant "urban Islam." It goes back to an important point that Muslims are like everyone else—they want justice, stability, a way to make a living, and education for their children. In many instances they’re choosing between corruption or fairness, school for their boy or no school at all, some hospitals or none at all. Let me explain. Let’s look at Afghanistan. Afghanistan was chaos before the Taliban. No one could leave their houses in Kabul at night because of the brutal clans manning checkpoints all across the city. There were no decent schools, few opportunities to get your son an education of any kind. Officials were corrupt, and if your wealthy neighbor had a dispute with you, he could bribe the police and win the dispute. So it’s not extremely surprising that when the Taliban offered order, justice and schools, some people of Afghanistan moved under the Taliban’s umbrella. They weren’t choosing radical Islam per se, they were choosing between very tangible things that made a difference in their lives. We can see the same thing happening in other areas of the Muslim world, whether Gaza or Iraq. I believe once moderate Islam can offer these things to people in Islamic communities, they will rush under the moderate banner faster then they’re moving to Wahhabism.
Additionally, many times they cannot make a choice at all—there is no choice to make. The groups with power force the people to conform to their brand of Islam. The people might not becoming more radical, just their leaders. When the power shifts and Muslims are free to chose which variety of Islam they want to practice, the people will gladly abandon the Wahhabi ship. Of course, some of this power is gained by radical Islamic recruiters referrencing US policies such as unlawful occupation, indefinite detention and torture of young Mulims, etc. If the US could temper its tone and shift its policies to eliminate these recruiting tools, their power would decrease.
Another reason I have a more optimistic outlook on Wahhabism versus moderate Islam: petrol dollars are providing the resources for Wahhabi Muslims. Whether it’s insurgents in Iraq or brainwashing schools in Pakistan, these are paid for by oil dollars. Oil won’t be as big of a source of power for the extremists in the future. As oil production peaks in the Middle East and countries detach themselves from Saudi’s teat, extremists are going to have to deal with less resources. In a couple decades, their funding source could be substantially reduced. Americans can definitely help here, by instating policies and changing practices that reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil.
What we’re seeing is a temporary shift that, if we play our cards right and moderate forces within Islam are brave enough to step up, is reversible.
As with many issues, I look first at the people on the ground that drive such a shift. In the case of people moving in the direction of Wahhabism, it’s not like the people in Islamic communities are actually selecting radical "desert Islam" over more tolerant "urban Islam." It goes back to an important point that Muslims are like everyone else—they want justice, stability, a way to make a living, and education for their children. In many instances they’re choosing between corruption or fairness, school for their boy or no school at all, some hospitals or none at all. Let me explain. Let’s look at Afghanistan. Afghanistan was chaos before the Taliban. No one could leave their houses in Kabul at night because of the brutal clans manning checkpoints all across the city. There were no decent schools, few opportunities to get your son an education of any kind. Officials were corrupt, and if your wealthy neighbor had a dispute with you, he could bribe the police and win the dispute. So it’s not extremely surprising that when the Taliban offered order, justice and schools, some people of Afghanistan moved under the Taliban’s umbrella. They weren’t choosing radical Islam per se, they were choosing between very tangible things that made a difference in their lives. We can see the same thing happening in other areas of the Muslim world, whether Gaza or Iraq. I believe once moderate Islam can offer these things to people in Islamic communities, they will rush under the moderate banner faster then they’re moving to Wahhabism.
Additionally, many times they cannot make a choice at all—there is no choice to make. The groups with power force the people to conform to their brand of Islam. The people might not becoming more radical, just their leaders. When the power shifts and Muslims are free to chose which variety of Islam they want to practice, the people will gladly abandon the Wahhabi ship. Of course, some of this power is gained by radical Islamic recruiters referrencing US policies such as unlawful occupation, indefinite detention and torture of young Mulims, etc. If the US could temper its tone and shift its policies to eliminate these recruiting tools, their power would decrease.
Another reason I have a more optimistic outlook on Wahhabism versus moderate Islam: petrol dollars are providing the resources for Wahhabi Muslims. Whether it’s insurgents in Iraq or brainwashing schools in Pakistan, these are paid for by oil dollars. Oil won’t be as big of a source of power for the extremists in the future. As oil production peaks in the Middle East and countries detach themselves from Saudi’s teat, extremists are going to have to deal with less resources. In a couple decades, their funding source could be substantially reduced. Americans can definitely help here, by instating policies and changing practices that reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil.
What we’re seeing is a temporary shift that, if we play our cards right and moderate forces within Islam are brave enough to step up, is reversible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
