It’s time, once again for the Monday Message Board. As usual, civilised discussion and absolutely no coarse language, please.
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
John Quiggin 
Here’s yet another opportunity for COW apologists to chop logic in defence of the indefensible:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article342859.ece
To quote the first paragraph of this “Independent” leak-based report:
“[In January 2003] George Bush considered provoking a war with Saddam Hussein’s regime by flying a United States spyplane over Iraq bearing UN colours, enticing the Iraqis to take a shot at it, according to a leaked memo of a meeting between the US President and Tony Blair. ”
Perhaps Bush hed never heard of the Marco Polo Bridge Incident. Then again, perhaps he had…
The issues around the ‘Mohammed cartoons” and the reactions by the Muslim Fascists in the ME is alarming, and as an issue will probably go away in time.
However, the issue of freedom speech vs freedom of religion are very important, which need further discussion.
The Iraqi people have a democratically elected government which, for the time being at least, wants the COW to stay put.
I think we should respect that wish.
JQ,
Your name is popping up on Jennifer Marohasy’s blog (http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog) in a few recent posts on salinity.
I’m currently enjoying Jennifer Marohasy’s blog – some great discussion delving into (and hopefully breaking) the rural-urban divide, the farmer-environmentalist divide, the theoretical scientist-on the ground expert divide.
“The Iraqi people have a democratically elected government which, for the time being at least, wants the COW to stay put.
“I think we should respect that wish.”
Interestingly, this is also the wish of the Iranian government. (Given the fact that the largest party in Iraq is an Iranian proxy, this is perhaps not surprising.)
Nice to see the Americans and Iranians agreeing about something.
Question is: who is the organ grinder and who is the monkey?
As for the controversy around the Danish cartoons, matters have clearly spun out of control and there is no justification for violence. By anyone. But, the issues are much more complex than many are arguing:
http://antonyloewenstein.blogspot.com/2006/02/more-than-free-speech.html
The interesting thing I find here is the attempt to impose Sharia on non-Muslims, which is an extension that even Muhammed himself did not attempt. The Koran itself is silent on the question of the depiction of Muhammed – only depictions of Allah are prohibited – but the hadith are more clear. Sharia, following the Hadith, clearly bans any depiction of Allah, Muhammed or any of the prophets. Sharia is also clear on to whom it applies – only Muslims must follow it all and subject people (i.e. non-Muslims living in a Muslim governed country) must not visibly offend against it.
Sharia was never intended, as far as I can tell, to apply to non-Muslims living outside of Muslim control. Strictly speaking, therefore, no offence against Sharia has occurred here – except possibly where they were published in Jordan.
I think, therefore, that this is being deliberately whipped up as an attempt to alienate Muslims from the West and provide a distraction from events at home – to me at least this can be seen by looking at the countries where the violence has got out of control. They are the ones attempting to re-enforce the seperation and improve their Islamist credentials.
Actually Andrew a picture of Mohamed is not banned for shias nor for sufis.
Any market in Iran has them.
They are also available in many countries in Africa.
EP,
I think it depends on the perceived status of the Hadith – as I said, the Koran is clear on images of Allah. I would have thought that true only for some of the Sufi sects – some of them are very close to Sunni orthodoxy, others much further away.
Interesting point though – maybe that is one of the reasons the Sunni regard the Shia as apostates. I did also make the mistake of equating Sunni with Muslim. Thanks for the correction.
Andrew,
Mohammad was prophet to Allah not Allah unless some has advanced him in the rankings
EP – the Hadith, in the orthodox Sunni version, extends the prohibition to all of the receivers of Allah’s word, i.e. the Prophets – and that includes Muhammed, Jesus, Abraham, Moses etc. etc. etc. This is viewed as a protection against idolatry. As a result, in an orthodox Sunni Mosque, only geometric designs and Arabic text (being quotations form the Koran) adorn the walls and ceilings.
Of course, you could also argue that the very prohibition, and the associated reaction against his image, is a form of idolatry in itself.
Andrew, my memory has the hadiths being somewhat contradictory on certain topics.
It is some time since I read them but I thought there was a get out of gaol tag for images of prophets somewhere hence why both Shias and Sufis don’t think twice about them however my aging memory is not something to hang my hat on so I will merely sit on the fence!
I think that burning embassies is highly offensive.
I wonder if there is a business opportunity in providing anger management classes in the middle east. They certainly seem to have more than their fair share of violent nut jobs.
EP,
The Hadith, like most religious writings, are contradictory on many points. The usual response is to pick the ones you (personally) agree with and declare the others to be inauthentic.
Both the Shia and the Sunni have their own interpretaton of them, which is one of the reasons why there are six major schools (and many minor schools) of Islamic jurisprudence.
All of them, though, would at least get upset at the depiction of the Prophet as the Devil, a terrorist or in a criminal line up.
Katz says: “Interestingly, this is also the wish of the Iranian government. (Given the fact that the largest party in Iraq is an Iranian proxy, this is perhaps not surprising.)
Nice to see the Americans and Iranians agreeing about something.
Question is: who is the organ grinder and who is the monkey?”
Now, now Katz, I think you are getting a little hysterical. It is like saying the Liberal Party in Australia is an American proxy, John Howard a monkey and George Dubya the organ grinder.
It may appear that way, but appearances can be deceptive.
Can’t we just respect the fact that the little brown people have had a legitimate election and respect the result, even if we don’t like it?
The same naturally applies to the Hamas victory in Palestine. I think there is every chance that the onerous demands of having to run the Palestinian territories will make Hamas more pragmatic provided Israel and America play their cards write.
Terje says: “I wonder if there is a business opportunity in providing anger management classes in the middle east. They certainly seem to have more than their fair share of violent nut jobs. ”
🙂 🙂 🙂
Great idea Terje. I’m thinking transcendental meditation, aromatherapy, massage, yoga and colonic irrigation. Let’s go into business!
The cartoons to kill for can be viewed here:-
http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/media_told/
“Now, now Katz, I think you are getting a little hysterical.”
Hysterical? I was shooting for smug.
Tone-wise, perhaps, I shouldn’t be content to lie on my laurels.
Then again, perhaps the fault lies in the receiver rather than the transmitter.
There is no easy cure for a tin ear for tone.
I wonder in all the ongoing allegatory revelations arising in the AWB investigation by his Honour Cole do not some of us find a higher principle here being ignored?
The issue of whether the PM was directly told, or new by way of information provided to him, of the under the table payments to former corrupt Iraqi officials for Australian wheat sales is evidentiary hair splitting.
I do not really care.
As PM, Howard should have known, given the history of US-Australian and world interest in Iraq culminating in the post 9/11 invasion (and second such conflict) by the US. As PM, his was a responsibility of good stewardship. Simply, it is his job and his responsibility to know. Iraq was a nation that we had countenanced and then did agree to the armed invasion of, and removal of a sovereign national government. To not to have knowledge of or not to seek knowledge about our business and activities in Iraq would be negligent at the extreme and highly imprudent in the general. On either point, negligent or imprudent, he has been reckless and now is dissassembling.
As an Australian Citizen, I believe we should uphold many core values of state, political stewardship and moral responsibility, and seek not to debase them further. There is a history, legislative and legal, to strongly suggest this is the way we should do business, Corporate Governance, Good Stewardship, same matter; it is about being honest, ethical and reasonable. No matter what the popular discourse and political bargaining that politics generate, all representatives are that, representatives, sworn to uphold the laws of the land and agreed international law.
For the PM to further seek to pre-empt the findings of the Commission by his premature statements on fact is to hold the Cole Inquiry in contempt.
In short, the PM has betrayed the trust and the faith of the electorate by his own admission of ignorance, and should now resign.
I call on him to do so.
Anyone read Ross Gittins’ article on the ecological implications of the growth of China? It quotes the Lowy Institute:
So, instead of being Australia’s free ride to untold eternal prosperity as so many economists have been proclaiming, the economic growth of India and China is more likley to be the trigger to global ecological collapse.
This scary prospect occurred to me more than twenty five years ago. How is it that it has taken until now for just some of our decision makers to begin to wake up to this?
James Sinnamon, correct! The numbers twentyfive years ago were grim and cannot change, simple consumption patterns will see to it, after price, politics will determine the exchange on the economic scarcity. I looked at some very good simple linear forecasts by the CIA during this period, they were actually spot on, the Lowy work is nearly identical in outcomes. The math was quite simple and eloquently put; raise the consumption pattern of the Chinese of beef to be the same per capita as say the Americans, and then the fish consumption to be same as Japan, then multiply the car ownership for both China and India for that of the western aggregate, and you will get a glimpse of the gigantic impossibility.
Decision makers to wake up? It’s the old accidents happen to someone else not us, illusion at work. Contrary to popular belief, this is going to be some smash. History of the planet has shown us that all biological explosions at some time have a great leveller, we are not the first great family of species to dominate the planet but at six billion and growing I guess ours is fast approaching.
“In the coming decades, we will either find ways of meeting human needs based on new technologies, policies and cultural values, or the global economy will begin to collapse.”
Or more likely, the definition of “human needs” will change, and the shambolic, eclectic global economy will stagger on as it has since the early modern period.
However, many people may well die at an earlier age than their parents were accustomed to die until a point of equilibrium between demand for and supply of essential resources is achieved.
Hmm,
Maybe the sky is truly falling down – where is Chicken Little when you need him?
Or maybe the elected representatives that seem to be beloved of a few of the commenters above have got it right? Just a thought. I am not always right that they are likely to have got it wrong.
Hmmm – the people, through their economic decisions, also seem to agree that Chicken Little was wrong. Confusing…
James:
Because they’re sophisticated enough to be aware of the inefficiency, mass-unemployment, destitution and despotism that inevitably result from top-down big-government planning. You know, like in third-world Sweden, which dares to consider terrible ideas like this, and has been unconscionably attacking freedom by promoting sustainable energy policy since the 1970’s.
Some claim, on the other hand, that our decision-makers happen to come from and identify with the very set of people who garner immediate profit from the lunatic short-termism that is essential to corporate oligarchy. But they’d just be embittered and cynical lefties, wouldn’t they?
The href disappeared from that hyperlink for some reason.
I meant “terrible ideas like this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,,1704954,00.html?gusrc=rss
Crispin,
Maybe they are also aware of the way that Sweden has achieved what they have done. The talking about sustainable energy policy since the 1970’s has resulted in … cars still running on petrol, houses heated by oil or gas and a fair chunck of the power from nuclear, with some hydro, the bulk of which was in place before all the talk.
Oh, thats OK – they are talking about weaning off oil – you know, the same way (but admittedly, to a different extent) that George W. Bush is. With 9 million people it will be tricky – try it with 20 million (in Oz) or 250 million (or more) in the US. Notice how they are not talking about eliminating fossil fuels – only oil?
Oops, slight correction – they are talking about all fossil fuels, but the only target is on oil phase out.
Crispin,
One other thing – even without a big, central government initiative this sort of thing can happen.
And whilst we’re on the subject of initiatiave-stifling ‘big government’, it seems that we now face a serious threat that our own Prime Minister may be thinking of bringing it back.
Did anyone hear that, in arguing his case that the Health Minister, rather than qualified health professionals, should be resposible for deciding on the suitability of the drug RU–486, John Howard said :
?
It seems now that even the group “Citizens Against Selling Telstra” is pathetically seeking to enlist our PM’s own words towards their troglodyte ends of retaining control of our telecommunitions infrastructure in the hands of our elected representatives.
Where will it end?
Thanks for your interest and support guys.
I learn from Andrew Bartlett on LP the following. The only problem I have with his comment is, For trivia buffs.
“For trivia buffs, I believe this is the first Private Senators Bill in the names of 4 Senators from four different parties (all of whom also happen to be women). If it does pass both Houses, it will be just the ninth Private Senators Bill to pass into law since Federation. “
Andrew, there are huge numbers of people of good will and remarkable ability in the ever-energetic and fecund US, so good things will happen there. But as long as they’re committed to corporate oligarchy as their means of social organisation, their ‘planning’ attempts will continue to be as diluted and ineffectual as they are now (hell, they’re still battling with syphilis).
Suggesting that the US has a chance of achieving more energy planning success than Sweden would be more than even the craziest possible betting man could stomach.
Yes, it may be easier for Sweden than the US for reasons of scale, relative cultural homogenuity, etc. But if Sweden were run along US lines, it’d be stuffed too.
Male: 21 in favour, 25 against.
Female: 24 in favour, 3 against.
Crispin,
I would say that I believe that the US has a better chance of coming up with better methods of saving energy that Sweden has – as for energy planning success – my whole point is that central planning of these things (and most others) will almost inevitably lead to an adverse or even perverse result.
As a side note, guess what lines Sweden was running along when it made the bulk of its current wealth? I can tell you, central planning had little to do with it.
I am also fascinated to see that venereal disease has something to do with energy policy.