LiveWire has an eyewitness account of the flogging in Saudi Arabia of Raif Badawi, a 30-year-old with three children who was arrested for apostasy, insulting Islam, and his real crime—running a discussion website called “Free Saudi Liberals.” While the apostasy charges (which could bring a death sentence) remain in limbo, Badawi was convicted on other charges and fined $267,000, sentenced to 10 years in prison, and ordered to be given 1000 lashes. That’s a harsh punishment, but, as the Guardian reports, “Rights activists say Saudi authorities are using Badawi’s case as a warning to others who think to criticise the kingdom’s powerful religious establishment from which the ruling family partly derives its authority.”
His wife divorced him and his family moved to Canada.
Yesterday Badawi received the first 50 of his lashes. An anonymous witness gave a report:
“When the worshippers saw the police van outside the mosque, they knew someone would be flogged today.
They gathered in a circle. Passers-by joined them and the crowd grew. But no one knew why the man brought forward was about to be punished. Is he a killer, they asked? A criminal? Does he not pray?
Raif Badawi had been brought to the square in front of al-Jafali mosque in Jeddah just after midday. There was a huge security presence – not just accompanying Raif but also in the streets and around the mosque. Some roads had also been closed.
Raif was escorted from a bus and placed in the middle of the crowd, guarded by eight or nine officers. He was handcuffed and shackled but his face was not covered – everyone could see his face.
Still shackled, Raif stood up in the middle of the crowd. He was dressed in a pair of trousers and a shirt.
A security officer approached him from behind with a huge cane and started beating him.
Raif raised his head towards the sky, closing his eyes and arching his back. He was silent, but you could tell from his face and his body that he was in real pain.
The officer beat Raif on his back and legs, counting the lashes until they reached 50.
The punishment took about 5 minutes. It was very quick, with no break in between lashes.
When it was over, the crowd shouted, “Allah-hu Akbar! Allah-hu Akbar!” – as if Raif had been purified.
The lashing took place in a mosque, and was scheduled after Friday prayers, ensuring a full house (and a religious lesson).
By all reports, these lashes aren’t tame: they really hurt, and a full dose of 1000 would have killed Badawi several times over. Fortunately (?), he’ll get just 50 every week for 20 weeks. Then he spends the next ten years in prison.
This is barbaric by any standards. Shame on the Saudis, and shame on those gawkers who cried “God is the greatest” after the lashing. One can hope that the protests of the U.S. government and Amnesty International might help free Badawi, but I don’t hold out much hope. The Saudis are, in their way, just as brutal as the Charlie Hebdo murderers. They should be mocked and criticized ruthlessly by the rest of the world. Not much hope of that either, I fear.
Oh, and one more comment that I can’t resist. Are apologists like Karen Armstrong and Glenn Greenwald going to pin this on Western colonialism? I don’t see how. There is no way that this can be laid at the door of anything other than oppressive religion. And remember, these aren’t “extremist terrorists”: it’s the Saudi government, for crying out loud!
Finally, go read Nick Cohen’s new piece at the Guardian, which uses the Charlie Hebdo murders and Badawi’s lashing to warn about the encroaching dangers of Islam on European democracy. Cohen is worth two dozen Andrew Browns—or more, and calls it as he sees it. A snippet:
The British are the world’s worst cowards. It is one thing to say you don’t approve of Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons. But the BBC, Channel 4 and many newspapers [JAC: including the Guardian, I think!] won’t run any images of Mohammad whatsoever. They would at least have acknowledged censorship if they had announced that they were frightened of attacks on their staff. They would have clung to a remnant of their honour if they had said: “We are not censoring out of respect. We loathe the murderers who enforce their taboos with Kalashnikovs. But we do not want to spend years living in hiding, as Salman Rushdie did. Or be stabbed in the street, as Theo van Gogh was. Or hear an Islamist smash at our door with an axe and cry: “We will get our revenge,” – as Kurt Westergaard did. So we are backing away.”
. . . Unless we find the courage to overcome fear, the self-censorship will spread, and not only in the media.
. . . My friend and comrade Maajid Nawaz was a jihadi before he converted to liberalism and understands the totalitarian mind. He says that people still do not realise that radical Islamists do not just want to impose their taboos at gunpoint. They want to “create a civil war” so that European Muslims accept that they can only live in the caliphate; to encourage the rise of the white far-right so that ordinary coexistence becomes impossible. If they win one demand, as they are winning in Britain, then they will up the tension and move to another.
As soon as you look at demands rather than labels, the wall dividing extremists from the rest begins to crumble.
. . . European liberals ought to have stopped, as the lash fell on Badawi’s shoulders, and wondered about their queasiness at criticising the religions of the “powerless”and “marginalised”. The Saudi Arabian monarchy is all too powerful, as are the other dictatorships of the Middle East. Power depends on where you stand and who stands below you. The unemployed man with the gun is more powerful than the Parisian journalist. The marginal cleric may have a hard life, but if he sits in a sharia court imposing misogynist rules on British Muslim womenhe is to be feared.
h/t: Grania, Gregory
sub
yup
eud
I’m in full agreement. In fact I think its actually worse that they shouted it not knowing who the person was or what he did, than if they had shouted it after knowing. Its just bloodthirst; cheering without even caring about what the crime might have been or the circumstances around it.
You have to shout as expected during the Two Minutes Hate (or Five Minutes, in this case): Big Brother is watching.
I remember reading, years ago, an analysis of the culture of the Puritans in Salem and Danvers before the Witch panic broke out, and how public floggings, etc., expressed the buried sexual feelings of this repressed group, how their sexuality got twisted and entwined with the fear of witches. (If you read the accusers’ testimony you realize that it is full of sexual imagery.)
I cannot remember the source, as I read this decades ago, but I believe that the same thing is going on with any public corporal punishment or execution: repressed sexuality, as well as greed (the Salem Witch Trials were largely a land grab), feelings of personal impotence, and a desire to see the mighty pulled down from their pillars (sound familiar to something that’s happening in atheism today?) all play a part in this group behavior.
That’s also a good description of the Inquisition, and the European witch trials.
There are also parallels with several other similar events in history, big and small.
Bread and circuses for the masses.
I was on the beach today, I noticed a couple of young women in bikinis strolling up the beach, which was a very pleasant sight, and the thought crossed my mind about what a perverse religion Islam is to want to dress all their women in sacks. Then I remembered the recent mischievous conversation I had with Ben about magically transporting Haredim to the Carnaval in Rio and causing their brains to overload and consigned Judaism to the same garbage bin…
And of course large chunks of Christianity are obsessed with (prevention of) sex.
What is it with these monotheistic middle eastern cults and their mediaeval holy books?
I feel quite lucky to live in a culture where people can wear, more or less, whatever they want.
(Obligatory note: Acknowledged not all Muslims / Xtians / Jews are like what I said)
It’s madness
It is madness. There is a lot of documentation of SS officers during the Holocaust masturbating during lashings and other tortuous cruelties they inflicted upon the Jews.
Sometimes I wonder how I found myself in such a twisted world of human formulation. Praise Ceiling Cat I wasn’t born in an Islamic country. Hopefully Pinker is right, and the future will be brighter than the present when it comes to violence and cruelty.
To live in a society where people do not find it a barbaric act to lash another for difference of opinion is to me evidence that there are among us who are still savage.
I don’t think they can be reached by common sense.
I strongly agree.
And the Saudi Arabian ambassador joined the Je Suis Charlie Paris march!
Just a minor point:
Reports are that the wife’s estranged family filed for the divorce on grounds of Badawi’s apostasy.
I stand corrected, thanks.
In fact, his wife has been very active in pushing for his release, including posting videos by their kids.
A must-watch video.
b&
I’ve seen it before – it is very moving.
That ambassador has quite some chutzpah, seeing how much of sunni terrorism’s finance seems to come from his country.
Saudi dollars may even have paid for the CH guns.
I was wondering if the divorce & fleeing had more to do with his family’s safety than anything marital.
This is so sick and depraved. At least his family was able to get out, until we know the facts – let’s not be too hasty to judge about the divorce. It could have been the only way he protected his family from great harm and/or extreme poverty had they remained. In Canada, the family can pursue international intervention.
I should have read one comment further.:) My thought as well.
Shame on Canada’s Office of Religious Freedom for not doing something.
Shame on the whole bloody world for doing nothing.
How dare you suggest that I have done nothing about this! Just this morning I drove my gasoline-powered car to the convenience store to fill it up in case I decide to drive around randomly later today.
Keep your shame to yourself.
Yes, I know how it is. As the price of crude drops I’m hoping and praying the Republican controlled congress will take this opportunity to pass a carbon tax while no one would notice. I’m pretty pleased with myself actually for driving a very small car.
Yes, and predictably, the first reaction to the collapse of oil prices (in the US) has been a jump in SUV sales.
(Hanging head as USian.)
I don’t know a whole lot about his case but its not clear to me that he wanted to go to Canada and failed, vs. wanting to stay and fight the good fight from in SA. If its the former and he was stopped by Canada (vs. being stopped by Saudi), then yes shame on Canada’s ORF. But if he was prevented from emigrating by Saudi, or if he chose to stay, then I don’t think Canada’s ORF has much to be blamed for.
He was in prison so didn’t have much choice to leave. As the situation looked worse and more dangerous for his family, they fled first to Lebanon and then to Canada. I’m pretty sure Canada would take him in, but they’re not doing much to pressure Saudi Arabia. The US State Department has sent a letter, finally, last week. Various European countries such as Norway are pushing a lot harder through diplomatic channels.
I blame the Office of Religious Freedom because I think it is a bullshit office. They are supposed to stick up for people subject to religious persecution around the world, even if they aren’t Canadian and this guy has a Canadian connection. So as a Canadian I call bullshit and shame on this odious office.
Please see http://www.international.gc.ca/media/orf-blr/news-communiques/2015/01/08a.aspx?lang=eng
Wow! I didn’t realize Canada would go so far! Go get ’em Canada. Show ’em what you’re made from.
That’s a good start but let’s just admit that the Office of Religious Freedom has no teeth.
Good post. But one feels impotent. Where is the United Nations? Where are the Human Rights organizations? Indeed, where are our lawyers? Where are western Churchmen and newspaper editors (left, right, and centre) and civil liberty organizations? Will our Premiers and Prime Ministers and Presidents give voice to the civic outrage, regardless of the pice of oil? One ought not need (necessarily) to engage in Muslim/non-Muslim polemics to stand against this as cruel and unusual punishment unacceptable in a civilized world. Whippings for trivia were done in North America and in Europe in times past. Those times should be past. How DO we best help catalyze that simple very public reaction of disgust?
The UN won’t touch this stuff–as long as it’s done by Muslims. But Israel, ah, that’s another story.
Oil, all just oil. Else, what are the other reasons the US (who, let’s face it, largely controls the UN) keeps such “friendly” diplomatic relations with the Emirates?
This is a very significant point against the Little People argument and its insistence that the religious are weaker than believers — especially when we’re dealing with the poor Muslims. Mocking Islam is framed as ‘punching down’ in the worst way, hitting not just against the faithful who need to believe but against what is often a despised minority.
But “power depends on where you stand and who stands below you.”
Yes: Religion already punches down, denigrating its own believers.
Religion (and God, surely, if you believe He exists!) are surely bigger and more powerful than anyone who mocks it (Him). Criticising and mocking religion is always punching up!
/@
50 lashed per week for 20 weeks? That IS going to kill him! I’d be surprised if it does not.
I grow more grateful for the voices of people like Maajid Nawaz every day.
I was very impressed with Nawaz on The Big Questions yesterday.
Here, for UK readers.
/@
The first section, on CH, here.
/@
Brilliant, downloaded, thanks mucho.
The more i hear from Nawaz the more i like him. The world needs more people like him. Especially the Muslim world.
I’m sure that Greenwald will eventually blame this on Israel and the US for supporting Israel. It should be remembered that, as bad as the fascist regime in Saudi Arabia is, the ISIL in Syria and Iraq is far worse. In the Middle East, good guys are in short supply.
In the middle east, Israel is the good guys.
Isn’t Jordan still pretty cool?
And Lebanon as far as i can tell.
One can always blame most anything on the British, since they set the Saud thugs up and supported them and then the Baby Brits (us Merkins) continued the process: OIL.
Seems to me GW Bush used to date one or more of the Saud boys, judging by the hand-holding. Who knows what the boys got up to in private.
It’s high time we recognized the battle cry, “Allahu Akbar!” for what it is: violently offensive hate speech, right up there with, “Sieg Heil!” The crowd who chanted it at Mr. Badawi’s torture is every bit as contemptible as a bunch of sheet-hooded Klansmen cheering the murder of a nigger.
Any Muslims reading these words: stop saying, “Allahu Akbar!”
In any context.
Whatever you think it means, whatever it might once have meant…is irrelevant.
All it means today is that the one who says it is a mindless and cowardly thug who hates civilization and loves chaos and destruction.
And, no, this is not a term you’re going to be able to “take back,” any more than a modern German conservative is going to be able to “take back” “Sieg Heil!”
b&
Pro-tip: don’t use the word “nigger” if you want people to take your message seriously.
Did you not read a single word I wrote? Have you no reading comprehension?
Amateur tip: the whole post was about violently offensive hate speech, of which, “Allahu Akbar!” and “nigger” were but two examples of many.
Beginner tip: you should be every bit as offended by uses of, “Allahu Akbar!” as you clearly are by, “nigger.”
b&
I criticized your decision to use a particular (in a message that I happened to agree with), because it was probably a tactical error, and your initial response is to ask if I read any of your words?!
I love a good metaphor or idiom, but you really needed to use a different one here.
Then your problem is reading comprehension. Or perhaps basic human decency.
I most emphatically do not need to use a different term.
Muslims killing to the refrain, “Allahu Akbar!” is exactly as offensive and for the exact same reason as Klansmen killing to the refrain, “Die nigger!”
You clearly are much less offended by, “Allahu Akbar!” than you are by, “nigger.” Is it because you’re just fine with the deaths of Muslims and French liberals, but the killing of Americans of relatively recent African ancestry really upsets you?
b&
We got your point Ben.
I was going to come in here and say that your choice of words is actually perfect because one evokes black men lynched and murdered while the other evokes the same lynching and murdering idea but more general rather than specific.
But, I was late in commenting — oh but I did already. Oh well.
The primary point of Ben’s comment hinges on that word. That you feel compelled to criticize his usage of it precisely illustrates the reason he chose just that word to convey his point. If the word “nigger” pisses you off, makes you angry, disgusts you, or otherwise evokes very negative emotions in you, then Ben has chosen well.
Exactly — thank you.
I’m sure many Americans with a built-in suntan feel a visceral outrage upon encountering the word, “nigger.” Brings back all sorts of memories of lynchings, of firebombings, of honest and worthy and admirable individuals treated like shit for no valid reason by other people who really were worth shit who wrapped themselves in the mere trappings of honor and worth and admiration.
Which is exactly the situation we’re in today with Muslims crying, “Allahu Akbar!” as they kill and destroy and torture and demean and ridicule the targets of their cries.
Oh, sure. The one term is used to suppress the target and the other to elevate the coward, but those’re just two sides of the same coin.
If you hear cries of, “Allahu Akbar!” at a time like this and you don’t feel the same outrage as you do upon hearing, “nigger,” then you’re in serious need of a moral recalibration.
Been a long time since “nigger” was the problem. A couple generations, give or take.
But just last week, “Allahu Akbar!” killed a bunch of pacifist French cartoonists, and just this week it brutally tortured a man who had the temerity to not believe in one of the worst faery tales in all of human history.
b&
“Been a long time since “nigger” was the problem. A couple generations, give or take.”
Unfortunately, that’s not what I hear. Just on the down low nowadays.
Some cleverly use “reggin.”
I’m sure ther’re still those who use it…but, as you point out, on the down low. It’s kept well out of view. And it’s lost most of its power…it’s one of those words that, when used in anger, generally does much more harm to the speaker than the listener.
Not to say it couldn’t come back…but, in the time it’d take for that to happen, the population is going to be too brown for it to make sense in the first place.
Of course, that’s not the only population whose “racial purity” (whatever that means, as if it were desirable) is “threatened” and who has a controversial term to describe them….
b&
Let’s not get too incensed over a word-choice disagreement–you guys are, after all, on the side overall, here.
–Rodney King
I was going to make that comment too.
Incidentally, I’ve heard that some anti-Charlie Hebdo twitterers had been posting old CH cartoons where the dreaded N word was used to try and discredit CH – out of context of course, and as we know Charlie Hebdo often used offensive words to make its point.
And this is what makes responding to the horrors of the Charlie Hebdo massacre and similar provocations so tricky. Such evil should be opposed directly and resolutely, but care has to be taken that responses don’t push moderates and other potential allies into the arms of murderous fundamentalists.
In the end I think the culture of Islam must change, but how to do that without making things actually worse is beyond me.
Mockery and laughter and ridicule — just what Charlie Hebdo was all about.
The cowards don’t deserve to be taken seriously. So don’t! Don’t take them seriously. They’re petulant, immature, small-minded idiots who won’t be taken seriously until they grow up. And especially don’t patronize them by pretending that they have something meaningful to contribute to the conversation.
Yes, yes. When they get violent, we’ll pay attention — but only to take their toys away from them and send them to “Time Out.” Other than that, they’re the laughingstock of civilization, what with their imaginary friend who rode off into the sunset on a flying horse with his prepubescent “bride” and all.
b&
I agree with the first sentence of your second paragraph. Respond to the violence in an appropriate way; that’s what we need to do to stop any such ‘civil war.’ Going after only violent legal offenders shows the civil war is unnecessary and muslims can live peacefully and prosperously in western democracies. It shows the the pro-caliphate extremists are wrong. OTOH, going after legal, non-violent Islamic beliefs and institutions would show exactly what the pro-caliphate islamists want to show, that ordinary coexistence between muslims and western democrats (in the large sense, not the political-party sense) is impossible.
Accommodationism as a long term tactic has never worked. There is no reason, not even pragmatism, to exclude Islam from criticism, mockery and ridicule. Just like any other religion, ideology or belief system. They’ll have to learn to suck it up just like everyone else is expected to.
If you mean merely that muslims should not have any rights that are acknowledged for all others curtailed or denied by the law, well, I think that goes without saying. At least in this forum.
But no one is suggesting accommodating the fundamentalists. No one is promoting appeasement. But at the same time, the notion that general anti-Islamicism plays into the hands of the fundamentalists is a vital observation. Clearly something more must be done to bring the moderate and liberal Muslims into secular liberal democracy, and wedge them away from the fundamentalists. Attacking Islam as a whole won’t do that. That is not to say that people shouldn’t have the right to criticize Islam, just that such by itself is not a winning strategy, and indeed may ultimately be counterproductive.
By that argument, this song is the best recruitment tool for Catholicism in nearly two millennia.
b&
Nothing buy itself is a winning strategy.
Moderate muslims will need to disown critical elements within Islam. This will not happen faster if the rest of us refrain from criticizing Islam as a whole.
While you claim that no one is suggesting accommodating fundamentalists, when you accommodate religion at all (by withholding criticism) you do exactly that. When you advocate for tell people not to criticize moderate Islam you mandate that some irrational beliefs deserve to be protected from challenge. Once you start protecting faith claims there is no rational way to determine which ones should be protected, relative to others. If you want a recipe for failure, there you have it. We’ve been doing accommodation and respect for moderate religion for a long time. It doesn’t help.
Aargh. “By”, not “buy”.
+much
One of which is the idea you should be personally offended by blasphemy. If as a society we didn’t take offense to someone insulting your mother no one would be punched for it.
Blasphemy is a victim less crime, or at worst an insult directed at the infinitely powerful creator of the universe who can take take care of himself. It doesn’t need you defend it. That’s an idea that moderate Muslims who support free speech need to propagate.
Absolutely, but how do we do that?
How? We amplify the voices of Ex-Muslims. We publicly and loudly advocate for free thinkers in Islamic countries. And in the West, for that matter. And we cease muzzling ourselves in fear of offending religious sensibilities.
And, especially for the younger generations, we make it decidedly un-hip and totally embarrassing to be perceived as stupid enough to take seriously an ancient faery tale about a dirty old man who rode off into the sunset on a flying horse.
Yes, of course — lots of great music, food, art, poetry, and all the rest. Luxuriate in it! But, please, just have the common decency to un-suspend the disbelief once you step out of the theatre, okay?
b&
I fail to see what alternatives we have in terms of turning Muslims. You can’t send them to reeducation camps to immerse them in enlightenment values, can you? You can’t shut down mosques and medresas that turn out believers by the millions, can you? I think the only technique, whether it’s immediately effective or not, is to insist on challenging the tenets of religion in general and Islam in particular.
That is the only road forward, IMO. Challenge to the tenants is what makes (some) people think. Ex-Muslims are especially important in this regard.
I responding specifically to Eric’s comment. Based on past comments and the particular comment of Eric’s I responded to, my interpretation is that he may very well have been expressing the opinion that an accommodationist approach is warranted. In acknowledgement that my interpretation was wrong, I also offered a brief response to another likely interpretation.
Mainly, I am just getting tired of the immediate and ceaseless warnings and admonitions about “painting with too broad a brush” and “attacking Islam as a whole.” Like I’ve said, in this thread even I think, a very important point. But one that does not need to be pounded on at every instance of criticism of Islam. In fact I would say it is time for the opposite. This refrain has become the standard refrain for the rampant and thoughtless cultural relativism, like Ben Affleck displayed on the Bill Maher show, that is so common on the left these days. Such people abound in every conversation of this issue, ignoring evidence that is right in front of their eyes, encouraging others to do so, and establishing their moral superiority.
And just to clarify, I am not equating you or Eric with Ben Affleck.
But I didn’t make an admonition or warning about painting broadly. I agreed with Ben Goren, but added some nuance. Are we getting to the point that any nuance is seen as accommodationist?
Nope, you did not. I pulled that cliche phrase out of the air, though it was used by someone recently either in this thread or one from the past day or two. That term was not aimed specifically at you.
I, of course, may have misunderstood you, and if so I stand corrected. The last sentence of that initial comment of yours seemed to me to be going down that road.
I’m not sure “more must be done” (except maybe clearer communication of equal rights and equal treatment). Obey the law, you are protected. Break it, you will be punished. Just like everyone else. No exceptions, no special treatment, but no additional negative treatment by government. And be aware that “no special treatment” means that others have the right to criticize your religion; get used to it.
Right on.
The latter was what I was saying. As Ben says, take their toys away and send them to time out when they are violent. Otherwise, criticize all you want.
Yes, this is a good summary.
And no restriction on free speech.
Right, but it requires a very fine scalpel to cut at fundamentalist Islam but not be seen to be attacking Islam in general, which is exactly the point.
To be absolutely clear, I will defend Charlie Hebdo’s right to publish whatever the heck it wanted to, as free expression is a bedrock of liberal democracy. But I also don’t think such a broad and blunt attack serves to hive off the jihadis from the moderates. Quite the reverse, in fact, since a Muslim doesn’t have to hold that unbelievers should be murdered in order to think that satirical images of Mohammed are disrespectful.
So undifferentiated mockery and laughter and ridicule are not the only answer, or even the primary answer. Relying on that alone is merely a gentler way to push moderates into the arms of the murderous fundamentalists. More needs to be done to integrate the moderates into secular culture, and to inculcate secular values. Poking fun at Islam at large doesn’t do that.
I don’t wanna butt in, but what in the world is wrong with criticizing Islam in general?
What special privilege does Islam have that should grant it that right?
Beat me to it….
If Christianity deserves to be mocked — and it most emphatically does — then Islam deserves even more mocking. Islam takes all of the crazy of Christianity, and then adds on top of it an even crazier layer.
b&
And further, failing to point out the absurdities of one religion while we continue to point them out in every other religion is giving it a respect it doesn’t deserve. We are all perfectly capable of maintaining good relationships with people who have views contrary to our own. To make one particular opinion ineligible for criticism is to make it sacred.
We don’t, as others have said, stop criticizing Christianity as counter-productive. Quite apart from anything else, we recognize it’s not counter-productive.
Islam doesn’t have any special privilege, and absolutely people should be free to mock it. But we should also acknowledge that doing so (rather than mocking fundamentalism) may be doing exactly what the militants want, which is to drive the moderates into their arms. We may be willing to pay that price to defend free speech and liberalism (as we are willing to tolerate other unpleasant outcomes of free speech absolutism) but it is a price.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/aral-balkan/islam-is-privilege_b_6456440.html?utm_hp_ref=uk
Nothing further to add.
I agree. I don’t care who has the bad idea: Islam, my PM, my dog or some random guy on the street. I still get to criticize that bad idea. It doesn’t mean I don’t like the Muslim, my PM (I’m sure he’s an okay if boring pal), my dog (who is great) or the stranger. I just don’t like their bad idea and we need to talk about that.
Yup. We can’t filter the good from the bad if we don’t break down our ideas and think them through together.
Comlpetely off topic. I’m watching a documentary on old Rome and Caligula. Good shit, but damn! 😉
Poor Little Boots; most likely suffered some sort of malady and was a bit of a black mark on the Julio-Claudians. You couldn’t say “goats” in his presence because he was hairy and people called him a hairy goat (or something like that). I don’t know who talked about this but it could just be made up…..but it is Caligula, so.
They mentioned that, but didn’t linger on it.
Inbreeding, perhaps? 🙂
Cohen’s piece is brilliant but it is a gem amongst the sea of bilge that has been produced by the British “liberal” media in the last few days.
The Guardian has predictably been the worst offender with Martin Rowson’s comment piece being particularly egregious. Not only did Rowson tell us that publication of the Mohammed cartoons was “racist” but he also instructed us not to “kid ourseves that this was anything to do with Islam..” Oh, and he also got in a reference to Mossad as well.
As Cohen says, it is quite reasonable not to publish out of fear and a desire for self preservation but what is striking in much of his own publication’s output is its dishonest self righteousness. Their cartoonists may be “fearless” when lampooning British politicians (who don’t after all come through the door with kalashnikovs) but they are utterly evasive when it comes to jihadists.
It was also depresssing to find out that the BBC’s editorial guidelines prevented “the pictorial representation of Mohammed in any circumstances”.
In relation to a large section of the British media it is clear the censors won long ago….
In fact the BBC has revised that guideline, and one of the ‘offensive’ cartoons was shown on the 10 o’clock News last Thursday
Applying the Salem Witch trials to the actions of Islam is maybe okay but with a difference. Salem was just a continuation of the mass Witch torture and trials in Europe. Also, the Salem business was brief and then it was over and did not return. Partly caused by ignorant religious people who thought these people caused disease and crop failure and you name it. Don’t like your neighbor just turn them in as witches.
What happened in Saudi and France was pure religion and it was breaking the rules of the religion. No voodoo here and not likely to fade.
I see your point, but I don’t think we should dismiss things that, from an historical point of view were over quickly. I’m sure it didn’t seem quick for those suffering. Also, religion was the source of the problem. As always, people used it for their own ends, but it was “pure religion”.
As Islam is having more contact with different cultures and religions, it will inevitably change. As always, there are those resisting the change, but they’re fighting a losing battle imo. Things will get better, hopefully sooner rather than later.
Celebrated public torture. Revolting.
The country that does this is unworthy of being part of the global community. However, human slavery was not outlawed there until 1972, and the international community was apparently fine with a nation in which one could hold slaves. So, not much hope of their being drummed out over this.
They have oil….
b&
And the current collapse (OPEC met a couple of weeks ago and all they could decide was: Keep pumping!) will severely impact SA.
I’m a little worried about the reaction of Russia (or maybe just Putin) to this price collapse.
Indeed. Putin’s manipulations, tactics and overall strategy have been built on the price of oil for some time now. And he plays by the old Soviet handbook. I think a little worry is defintely in order.
Putin had the whole time he was in power to diversify his economy and chose not to. This is all on him. During the short duration when Medvedev was in power, he started making steps to do so then Putin undid everything he started when he got back in power.
What we have to worry about is a destabilized Russia. Putin can be a nuisance but he’s much better than the alternative – a way more right wing leader that is probably crazy (I don’t think Putin is crazy, just narcissistic) and has access to nukes. This scenario really scares me, to the point that I see a need for the west to help Russia. I know, I know sounds nuts but politics is nuts anyways.
I don’t think it is nuts. Besides being pragmatic, it also seems like the decent thing to do for many millions of people. And not just Russians.
Help beats a destabilized Russia any day. If he’ll take it.
I haven’t been keeping up with that part of the news. My first reaction is that this is a very bad sign…I doubt very many operations are profitable at today’s prices, which would tend to imply that this is a final grab of as much cash as they possibly can before a serious collapse. A flat-out sprint to the end.
b&
I agree. Someone pointed out (I think a scientist that was being interviewed for being silenced by our oil loving government – seriously my PM is so much like Putin it’s no wonder they hate each other) that governments, etc. will pump lots into getting all the oil out but then it will crash.
I’d even be cool with such a strategy…if we weren’t merely squandering away the last drops. If it were part of a concerted effort to invest the remaining reserves in building alternate infrastructure, that’d be fantastic. But just so the elite can stuff their mattresses with even more cash as the masses indulge in one last orgy of SUVs?
What madness is this!?
b&
I don’t think we have to worry about Putin in that respect.
The Human rights are fucked, but he’s not about to start ww3 just because oil prices are dropping and the well is being sucked dry.
Saudi Arabia….I have no clue.
Well, after Crimea and eastern Ukraine, I’m not so sure about Putin.
Economic chaos in Weimar Republic Germany was the main reason the Nazis were able to be voted into power. It’s playing a little too closely to the history of Germany for my comfort level. Right down to Putin’s speeches during the Crimea crisis — they could have been written by Hitler (or his speech writers). I was reading The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich at the time and the parallels were frighteningly close. There’s a pretty strong set of Russians who yearn for the old Czarist boundaries.
My big worry in this are places like Venezuela, Nigeria, Mexico: What will this collapse do to them? What kind of chaos will it bring on?
Well, that’s why we have to invent our way out of these energy requirements.
Putin can’t re-create USSR or anything like it because information is harder to control.
That’s one of the advantages we have compared to the 30’s.
Problem is, the alternatives aren’t cheap. They generally become economically competitive with oil at about the $200/bbl range.
Worse, any type of new investment needs some sort of stability. What happens when prices climb enough for some new alternative to just start to think about breaking even…and then, six months later, the bottom falls out of the petroleum market and all those alternatives can’t even begin to compete? And then another six months later when petroleum soars, how’re the alternatives supposed to pick up where they left off without having to start from scratch?
b&
I can’t remember the source, but I think we’ve got oil for some 30-40 years yet to come, so there’s still time.
I don’t believe in the concept of limiting our energy consumption in the long run.
It’s much, much more complex than a simple “X years supply remaining” question.
The simplest answer, and the one that both has all the relevant facts and contains the answer of what to expect…is that we’ve extracted about half the world’s supply of petroleum, with the other half currently still in the ground.
At first blush, that might seem like great news. After all, it’s only been about a century since we started drilling for oil in earnest; shouldn’t that mean we’ve still got a century’s worth left?
And the cut-to-the-chase answer is, “Yes.” But that answer is actually really bad news.
You see, we’re currently using (and pumping) oil faster than at any point in all of history. If we were only using oil at the rate we were a century ago, we’d be in great shape…but we’re not.
The next thing people leap to is, “Then how much oil do we have left at current rates?” And that’s where the, “A few decades,” answer comes from that you refer to. Sounds a bit worrisome, but not end-of-the-world worrying, no?
No.
There’re lots of compounding factors at play, all of which are real doozies.
First, all the high quality, easy-to-get-to oil is long since gone. No more need you be careful with a pickaxe in Texas lest you set off a gusher; today, our oil comes from rigs like Deepwater Horizon, which was a mile over the ocean floor, and then went a few more miles through bedrock to reach the deposits. And tar sands and oil shale have long since been the proverbial jokes of last-ditch desperation in terms of oil recovery. Our resident gravel inspector can fill you in on just how expensive extraction is in an historical perspective, but it’s getting to the point that the companies are starting to have trouble justifying paying the salaries of people like him to find more oil, based on the prices that the market is willing to pay.
Long story short with that factor is that oil is going to get increasingly more and more expensive, and it’ll come slower and slower when it does come.
The next factor is that our whole economy is founded upon not steady-state existence, but continued growth. “Stagflation” is not a good thing, remember? Sure, we might have a few decades at today’s usage rates…but, if we’re to continue our historical growth rate of a few percent or so per year, we suck the very last drop dry in a decade if we’re lucky.
And that starts pointing to the real sorts of panic we face. Our economy doesn’t function without growth. Our economy can’t survive any more growth. The two problems combined equal economic collapse. Maybe it’ll be a perpetual continuation of Great Recession, maybe there’ll be some epic crashes…but, like it or not, we really are going to start reducing our petroleum usage by a few percent a year, giving us a century until the wells run dry, and we’re going to pay more and more and more and more for each successive barrel. That’s just physics.
The one real hope is, as I’ve mentioned, that alternatives tend to get economical in the $200/bbl range. For that sort of money, you can use solar or wind or nuclear or whatever to turn CO2 into syngas, and then turn that into something that can substitute for crude in the refineries.
But…that’s not cheap. It’s damned expensive, in fact. And it’s not at all clear that our economy can function at that sort of price range.
…oh, did I mention? You can’t (cheaply) substitute coal (etc.) for petroleum. Our transportation fleet runs on petroleum, not coal. Much more importantly…our agriculture, our very food chain, utterly depends upon petroleum for everything from fertilizer to pesticides to fuel for farm equipment to fuel to transport the food to processing centers to the grocery store to the home…no petroleum, no food, basically.
Here’s an excellent introduction to the subject:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O133ppiVnWY
Cheers,
b&
Absolutely, but it is still our main resource in terms of energy.
There are umpteen factors that we simply can’t predict and I’d argue that psychology is the biggest factor regarding economy.
There’s no guarantee that we’ll ever find a resource that’s unlimited, but we have to make it clear to ourselves that in lieu of that it will be necessary to constantly re-think our technology.
Oh, but we have! Or close enough as makes no difference.
It’s that big bright thing overhead during the day.
To put things in perspective…with back-of-the-envelope calculation accuracy, we can meet the entire planet’s energy use in all forms just by covering every American residential rooftop with the type of solar panels you can buy at the local home improvement store. All energy for the planet just with the surface area of one nation’s homes. Gives you an idea of what kind of energy is available from other countries and other rooftops.
Of course, the big problem with solar, aside from the cost of the initial capital investment (which, by the way, blows the pants off the stock market in terms of payback time), is what to do when the Sun’s not shining, such as at night or in inclement weather or winter or what-not. But those sorts of problems solve themselves when you throw enough energy at them. Yes, it takes a lot of energy to extract CO2 from the atmosphere and turn it into hydrocarbon fuels, for example. But, if you’ve got the energy to spare — and we would with enough solar installations — then why not? And you can burn those fuels in today’s jet engines and combine harvesters…as well as when the Sun’s not shining.
The problem for the economy is, again, that initial capital investment. It’s a much better long-term investment than anything else…but you still need that cash on hand up front. Or, at least, somebody has to have it on hand — a bank or the equivalent.
…and oil is ultimately today’s principal form of capital to invest, and that’s the one thing we’re running short on.
Catch-22.
b&
4.5 billion years?
Where’s you’re ambition, mate. We can do better than that. 😉
As long as we don’t have to compromise and downgrade our gadgets because of energy shortage.
Been there, done that and it’s an utterly silly restriction humanity puts on itself, imo.
But we’ll know soon enough, I reckon. 🙂
Again, it won’t be an energy shortage but an economic one.
Cover your roof — or, generally, only a third or maybe an half of it if it’s a small home and you use an awful lot of energy — with the panels they’re selling at your local home improvement store, and you’ll generate (net) all the energy you use today and then some. If you want to drop off the grid altogether, double your budget and buy a battery system.
Fair chunk of change, right? Right. But the energy’s falling on your rooftop, free for the taking, whether you collect it or not.
In terms of economics, it’s generally more profitable to not spend in the first place. A good insulation job and relevant energy efficiency upgrades will often pay themselves off even faster than the investment in solar power collectors, so a wise investor will start with them. But, if you’re rich, you’re still getting more than enough sunlight for all the guilt-free conspicuous consumption you could want.
b&
I don’t think Putin is interested in recreating the USSR but he doesn’t know how to play by any other playbook than the one he was brought up to use. He needs to bring back Hermann Gräf (German Gref).
Not just the other oil producers right now, but everybody after prices rebound.
Anybody else remember the oil price shocks of the ’70s? Up-and-down. This is setting itself up to be that, but much, much worse….
b&
Yes, this is exactly my point/worry. I did live through them. It was bad.
Absolutely. I remember running out of gas on a day that wasn’t “my” day to get it.
And Putin’s anti-homosexual laws were also similar to Germany’s early persecution of the Jews. Create a scapegoat for the masses, then do something nuts while everyone is riled up. Right after these laws began creating international uproar and after the Olympics, he takes Crimea; it seemed planned to me. A lot of unsettling parallels to Nazi Germany are apparent.
We have to worry about Russia become unstable and Putin losing power. Putin is a pest but we can deal with him. In all likelihood a real right wing person would get in and that guy will make Putin look like a teddy bear. Then we are really in trouble!
The scary thing is…almost the exact could be written about the US. Santorum or Bachman for president, anybody?
b&
Though scary, the US has a stronger economic system, better trade and better international relations (better trade deals & treaties). Sure, it could be super bad, but Russia has a bad economy and Putin has whipped up the masses. The government also controls most of the media so the people could end up deceived. At least in the US, that hasn’t happened yet (though journalism took a hit in the W Bush years).
Yeah, Russia is a lot less stable than the US…but the splash if the US takes a dive is potentially worse than if Russia does…not that Russia landing in the shitter would be any picnic….
b&
Either way, if the U.S. or Russia implodes, Canada is totally screwed. During the Cold War we were always taught that the USSR would nuke Niagara Falls and a few key areas that would support the U.S. and then the US would intercept missiles over Canada so SOL.
I don’t think there’s anywhere on the planet that would be truly safe if any of the really big powers implodes…the US, Russia, China…the economic ripples alone would be more like tsunamis.
Now, consider that Russia and China share a border, and that China and the US share an economy. Talk about strange bedfellows…..
b&
Sharing an economy is a good thing. You tend to see your “enemies” as important to your own survival. Russia shares an economy with China and we all do deals with Russia.
Absolutely. It’s a big part of the reason we haven’t yet gotten into WWIII.
…but it does come with downsides….
b&
I think that a large part of driving the oil price down is to undermine the competition; specifically the practice of obtaining oil through fracking. The US is in the midst of an oil extraction boom driven by this practice, and its success is a serious threat to nations like SA. However, there is a point in which the price of oil would be too low to justify the cost.
It’s already there.
The Middle East producers are almost the only ones still making a profit, which is why they’re letting the price drop. They’re trying to drive people like the American frackers out. Imo, the American government is letting them do it because it’s also an effective control on Russian aggression, and they need ME support against DAESH.
They are also addicted to oil revenue. Seems like a pyrrhic victory, if victory at all.
I believe that many Filipino maids are still employed there on terms and conditions that are tantamount to slavery.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-employer-pours-boiling-water-on-filipino-woman-9397433.html
Once again, the anti-levity factions are tuning up their torture tools and offering varieties of oppressive experience.
Oppression now, oppression tomorrow, oppression forever.
Nick Cohen once again understands the issue that too many are refusing to see.
“The Saudi Arabian monarchy is all too powerful, as are the other dictatorships of the Middle East”.
They are also ‘friends’ of the US, the UK and other western states. As Ben points out this is because they have oil and also because they are seen as ‘on our side’ against Iran and, formerly, against Saddam Hussain. This is all very convenient but our governments are turning a blind eye (or at least being extremely feeble in their protests)to vile abuses of human rights and the promotion of the extreme Wahabist interpretation of Islam that lies behind much of the terrorist violence that is perpetrated round the world.
It is time our governments got tougher with the Saudis and stopped propping them up with arms – however inconvenient this may be for some of our most powerful corporations.
This is one of the reasons Saudi is letting the price of oil drop. When the price is high, getting oil from alternative sources becomes economic. There has been much talk in the US in recent years of oil independence becoming a reality. That would mean Saudi couldn’t rely on political support from America. The low prices make fracking and green sources uneconomic to pursue, so Saudi retains US political support and the ability of the royal family to continue with Wahabbism remains.
Saudi Arabia wants to punish Russia for supporting Syria too.
Well, it’s all of OPEC, not just SA.
But this is what happens when you don’t tolerate multiculturalism. Victimized and marginalized Muslims will quite literally lash out.
If not for the West and its cultural insensitivity and unwanted incursions into the Middle East, this violence would not occur.
Test over. I just tried saying the preceding out loud while maintaining a straight face and not looking like a lying sack of dung. I only made it past “if” on the second paragraph. Not sure how folks like Aslan can make a career out of it.
Riiight. Are you serious? Do you honestly think that if the West was absent from the area, Saudi Arabia would release Raif and stop oppressing atheists?
Dude, they aren’t doing it because they’re afraid of us or to teach us a lesson; they are doing it because they’re afraid of their own people, to teach them a lesson: that they will not tolerate other religions in any but the most trivial sense of ‘tolerate.’
Perhaps you didn’t read the third para., eric?
/@
Oh sorry, I responded before reading your third paragraph. I apologize for doing that. Please by all means continue with the satire. 🙂
Yes! And it proves that the ramblings of people like Aslan have reached Poe status.
Ah, you hadn’t … 😁
/@
For a moment there I thought you were serious. My blood was about to boil before I read your last paragraph.
I nearly got caught out too. 🙂
I considered not even including the third paragraph because I thought the satire would be obvious. But then I thought, no, this is exactly how some folks would be spinning it.
If I followed an ideology, and on a regular basis other followers of this ideology committed mass murder, quite explicitly in the name of that ideology, I would take a long hard look at both myself and this ideology.
In the past though, many were unaware there was an alternative. Some still aren’t. Others, because of how they’ve been taught to think since childhood are virtually beyond help. We’re lucky to have been born in at times and places where information is available to us. You may be one of those capable of leading a movement of change when they recognize such things, but a majority aren’t.
For many of these people, killing unbelievers and apostates is a rational act to protect their society. I feel we need to recognize that, and intervene with education. It’s also why I think pandering to the “don’t criticize Islam” brigade is wrong. Information is the key to change.
Btw, just in case I’m misinterpreted, this comment is not a criticism of TJR.
Not taken as such, and of course even if it were a criticism, it would be a criticism of my statement and not of me. Which to some extent is the point we are making. (Although given the nature of this particular statement, the distinction maybe doesn’t entirely work in this case).
This is a long-winded way of saying that I agree with you…..
I’ve said it before: The Saudis are not our friends.
Saudi Arabia’s laws embolden terrorists. They continues to make free speech a crime and through this validate the religious violence in Paris and elsewher. Cut diplomataic relations with Saudi Arabia. Let them eat oil.
I went to The Guardian and found this- apparently there was some snow in the country.
‘A prominent Saudi Arabian cleric has whipped up controversy by issuing a religious edict forbidding the building of snowmen, describing them as anti-Islamic”
Snow-Mo! _ \ (“) / ( ¥ )
/@
This just in. In a revised ruling Sheikh Munajjid has determined that building a snow woman is acceptable as long as it is properly veiled so as not to inflame lust.
Also, she is not allowed to drive a snowmobile.
😀
Snow in Saudi Arabia? Sure this was the Guardian, not the Onion…?
I stand in awe of the courage Raif Badawi and people like him – there are men and women speaking up every day on topics that could get them killed (and worse!). And here I hide behind a pseudonym on atheist and leftist comment threads because I’d prefer clients not Google me and discover I share “controversial” thoughts.
I don’t know how they do it, but then I don’t know how anyone can look at Raif Badawi’s sweet face and decide he deserves to be viciously beaten.
My hope would be that those who speak out have an impact which surpasses their sacrifice, but I am not at all optimistic that it does. I really, really hope I am wrong about that.
We criticize other, less important, regimes to our country and let sadistic, criminal regimes such as the Saudi’s invest in our country, be seen at our political and large scale social events as an ally, and we continue to fuel their economy, filling their bank accounts. This country has been the focal point of all radical Islam from the beginning and until we recognize this and make a concerted effort to pressure change while removing ourselves from their influence, we are equally responsible for their behavior.
No we’re not. We are not 50% responsible for that guy getting whipped. If you think so, you’re sorely mistaken.
I thought Ed’s “this country” referred to Saudi Arabia…
Yes. But the “equally responsible” part is what Jerry objected to.
As for me, I don’t know what the percentages are, but I agree with Ed that the West, and the US in particular, does share some responsibility. We do precious little to counter the Wahhabi poison that Saudi Arabia exports along with its oil.
Thanks, GB, sometimes I skim too quickly. And I agree that we’re part of the problem.
Ali A. Rizvi at Huffington Post makes the following observation:
“Public floggings, limb amputations, and beheadings remind most Westerners of ISIS or the Taliban. But in Saudi Arabia — the one country in the world that enjoys more unconditional U.S. support than any other — they are the law, sanctioned not only by the government, but by the state religion. In the same month that the world was reeling with shock at the brutal beheading of James Foley at the hands of ISIS, Saudi Arabia publicly beheaded 19 people, for crimes ranging from smuggling cannabis to sorcery.”
The Prophet has no clothes and should be shown like he is on every street corner until Saudi Arabia cleans up its act.
BTW, the Charlie Hebdo cover for the Wednesday edition is excellent! It depicts the Prophet holding a sign saying “Je sui Charlie” with the caption “You (i.e. the Prophet) are Forgiven” With this HC has pictured the Prophet admitting he has sinned and receiving forgiveness from the magazine!
In a few days we should see how really peace loving Islam can be. [Read with the usual large dose of sarcasm].
The Huffington Post link is: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-a-rizvi/jailed-saudi-blogger-raif_b_6125244.html
And a good night to all.
Re Cohen’s statement:
They would at least have acknowledged censorship if they had announced that they were frightened of attacks on their staff. They would have clung to a remnant of their honour if they had said: “We are not censoring out of respect. We loathe the murderers who enforce their taboos with Kalashnikovs.
Hurrah, and exactly what I would do if I was the editor-in-chief of a medium to large paper with hundreds of employees. To protect employees, I would not show the cartoons, and admit that it was to protect my staff, pretty much the equivalent of hiring lots of security guards. If I were a self-published author (and especially if I was anonymous) I would go for the cartoons.
Anyone remember when the chain Walden Books decided not to carry Salman Rushdie’s “The Satanic Verses” and then best-selling author Stephen King said if they did that, Walden Books would not be allowed to carry any Stephen King titles ever in perpetuity? Rushdie’s “Satanic Verses” was back on the shelves the next day!! Well, those were the days before 9/11.
I had never heard that. Boooyaaa for Stephen King! His writing is not for me, but he is now my official hero for the day.
Reblogged this on Shashank Patel.
Reblogged this on Durango Skeptics and Atheists.