The Bugs Bunny "What A Maroon!" Award Returns

It has been some time since the Geek last bestowed the highly coveted "What A Maroon! Award."  This has not been due to a dearth of candidates.  Quite the contrary, the past several months have been awash to the scuppers with moronic policies and the severely intellectually challenged folks behind them.  Simply, there have been entirely too many possibilities to single out just one each and every week.

Fortunately, a person has emerged from the fog of merely inept, incompetent, brain dead wonks and pols inside the Beltway.  Finally there has been an act of such unmitigated idiocy that the Award must be bestowed.

The envelop, please.  Riiippp.  Raise the slip of paper inside.  Read the distinguished name of the winner.

"And, the winner is.....(drum roll.)  Lick lips in anticipations.  "The winner is Hillary Clinton!"  Applause.

That's right, bucko.  The recipient is our most distinguished Secretary of State.  Ms Clinton gets the Award not for her efforts to push back on the eviscerated foreign aid budget.  Nor for her opposition to the cuts to the Foreign Service appropriation.  No.  Those were not moronic.

Well, what then?  Is this belated recognition for Hilary's hard work to bring about the Libyan policy morass?  No, although a strong case can be made for her receiving at least an honorable mention in this area.

SecState Clinton deserves the "What A Maroon!" Award for her recent collaboration with the Secretary General of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC,) the Turkish proponent of political Islam and historian manque, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, in the area of preventing religious defamation.  In an announcement datelined Jeddah, Ms Clinton and Dr Ihsanoglu declared the US would host a series of meetings to focus on the implementation of a UN Human Rights Council resolution 16/18.

This measure passed by the discredited Human Rights Council last March is intended to combat in an "urgent" fashion the growth of something called "Islamophobia."  While carefully avoiding the use of either the word "Islam" or "Muslim," the intent of the resolution to single out the faith of the Prophet for special protection is clear.  The fifty plus Muslim majority states of the OIC have long pushed for the criminalization of any written, spoken, or graphic consideration of any aspect of Islam in any manner other than the adulatory.  After many failures, the OIC and its supporters such as Russia and China succeeded in getting 16/18 passed by a minority of the HRC members.

It is always essential to keep in mind that the overwhelming majority of the OIC membership is well known for limiting free expression and inquiry.  The same is true of states which have sided with the OIC in its efforts to stifle open expression and the equally free inquiry which accompanies expression.  Some OIC states, such as Pakistan, whose delegation introduced 16/18 as well as its numerous predecessors, has blasphemy laws of the most draconian sort enshrined in law.

It is equally necessary to recall that OIC states such as Egypt are (in)famous for the easy availability of antisemitic billingsgate such as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.  Throughout the Muslim states, Judaism is defamed in the worst imaginable ways and in all media.  Christianity is no better treated.  Nor is Hinduism.  Or Buddhism.  Or minority groups within Islam such as the Alawites of Syria.  All religions other than the most mainstream versions of Islam are fair targets for "defamation."  Even the two largest subgroups of Islam, the Sunni and the Shia are willing, even eager, to "defame" the other.

Of course this "defamation" is not seen as such by the Muslims.  To a good Muslim, the other faiths are either bastions of the infidel or expressions of apostasy.  Thus, it is impossible by definition to "defame" them.  Having not submitted to the unique Muslim view of the deity, adherents to all other faiths are fair game for whatever vitriol any Muslim cares to spill forth.

Logically, as the only "true" faith, only Islam merits protection as only Islam can be "defamed" by the vile slanders of the infidels and apostates.  It is not extreme to assert that even the most objective, fact based, well documented assessment of Islam is automatically "defamatory" if it comes from the tongue or pen of an infidel or apostate.  Considered from a Muslim perspective, the HRC resolution and all national policies or actions which arise from its application can serve to protect only Islam as only Islam resides in the realm of true faith.

As a dedicated adherent of political Islam, the OIC Secretary General is willing to do whatever is necessary to advance and protect the interests and position of Islam.  Thus, it is not surprising that he seized upon the Norwegian tragedy to argue that now more than ever the states of the West must move quickly and effectively to turn the theory of resolution 16/18 into legal practice.  The unfortunate reaction of so many in the Western and American elites to the berserker act of Brevik gave added power to Ishanoglu's argument.

The elites in the post-Brevik days continued and amplified their assertion that any criticism of Islam or any linkage of Muslims with terror serves the end of alleged "rightwing extremists" with the results such as those in Norway.  This exercise in absurdity and political correctness automatically plays into the censorious hands of the OIC.  Somehow, even the most objective and well-documented negative interpretations of Islam or the relation between the tenets of the faith and violent political actions are seen by the left leaning elites as being responsible for the action of Brevik.  Without any documentation, the same people argue that a myriad of potential Breviks are lurking all through Western and American societies waiting to be triggered into violence by some less than hosanna laden treatment of Islam or Muslims.

Showing her elite credentials and leftward bent, Ms Clinton signed onto the OIC's gag-the-infidels gambit.  No matter what her intentions are and no matter what the outcome may be, the secretary's agreement to a series of meetings oriented to putting 16/18 into practice gives the Muslim "speechophobic" move a legitimacy it does not deserve.  Her action provides an imprimatur to a resolution which strikes at the heart of the most basic and critical right resident in Western societies.

Free inquiry and expression is a protean right.  It is also a right from which many others emerge.  It is so basic to Western liberties and Western economic, social, political, and cultural development that it is simply impossible to separate free speech from the West as it exists today.  The utter absence of any real free inquiry and expression in the countries of the OIC goes far to explain why these states are comparatively backwards in all respects.

The irrelevance of rights, including that of free expression and inquiry, in Muslim majority states is not surprising.  Islam, unlike other major faiths, has no inherent concept of rights.  Islam is all about duty.  Believers have duties to the deity and to other believers, but, as good slaves, they have no inherent rights.  In sharp contrast, other faiths, particularly those preeminent in the West, not only acknowledge the existence of rights, rights which are inherent to the human condition, but exalt those rights by stating clearly and repeatedly that the exercise of rights requires the concomitant acceptance of duties.

To the faithful Muslim, the Western emphasis on rights constitutes a world through the looking glass.  It is not comprehensible to the good and faithful Muslim with his focus on knowing his duties and executing them with willing joy.  The Muslim has a duty to protect his religion against the words of the infidels and apostates.  His duty goes so far as to seek to prevent the infidel and apostate from sullying the faith by even an honest and objective narrative treatment.  The Muslim has a duty to exalt his faith above all others, which means he is allowed to attack the "false" beliefs.  His double standard is not hypocritical but rather is an honest expression of duties and beliefs.

Ms Clinton is not a Muslim as far as is publicly known.  She is, however, an American.  As a holder of an office of trust and confidence under the Constitution, she has taken an oath of office swearing to protect and defend the Constitution to the best of her ability.  She is a lawyer by education.  Putting the two aspects of Ms Clinton's life together, it must be concluded that she understands the OIC backed resolution is repugnant to the Bill of Rights.

She became a "maroon" of the highest order when she did not meet the demand that the US support 16/18 with any reaction other than gales of derisive laughter.

One More Famine In Somalia

Records of both history and climate data show recurrent droughts have hit the horn of Africa generally and Somalia in particular with regularity.  It was a drought induced famine which invited the US humanitarian intervention in the dismal geographic expression called Somalia during the waning days of the George H.W. Bush administration.  This adventure in feeding the starving brought with it a bout of mission creep and finally the humiliating withdrawal of US personnel following the ill-advised, poorly planned, and hastily executed failed raid on a chief warlord.

Since then the US has provided aid, humanitarian as well as military, to the Somalian people and their most recent experiment in government, the Transitional Federal Government.  The aid has been cut substantially in recent years due to well founded concerns that it might have been benefiting the al-Shabaab gunslingers more than the civilians for whom it was intended.  When the Mighty Warriors of the Koran ordered an end to the activities of international aid organizations including the UN, American aid functionally ended along with that provided by other civilized states.

The situation in al-Shabaab dominated portions of the country has grown ever worse.  Partially, this is the effect of the drought.  But more it has been the result of the combination of ineptitude and brutality which is the hallmark of al-Shabaab's  notion of proper governance according to the finer points of Islam.  The joining of hunger beyond description and fear of the thugs of Islamic purity has resulted in a flood of refugees pouring into vastly overcrowded camps in Kenya and new rather informal facilities in Ethiopia--a country where famine also stalks the land.

The UN and international organizations such as Oxfam have declared that an official famine exists in large portions of Somalia.  Oxfam has pointed the great finger of blame at the US and the European Union, alleging that both entities have been slow and inadequate in their response to the emergency despite ample warnings and importuning.

The Flying Finger of Guilt is misplaced to say the least.  The US has increased its food aid to the region, including an additional twenty-eight million bucks worth of food for Somalis.  The EU has done likewise.  At the center of affairs the UN believes it can successfully negotiate a mode of existence with al-Shabaab which will allow the food and accompanying aid workers to work in the regions they dominate.  But this remains an open question.

Dark hints have been made to the effect that the ongoing US effort to counter both al-Shabaab and its close affiliate, al-Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula, are complicating the business of making a deal with the gunsels of al-Shabaab.  The necessary inference is that the US should stop its semi-clandestine war with both advocates of violent political Islam.  Ironically, Oxfam, the same group which deplores the US drone attacks on al-Shabaab fighters has also mentioned the need to invoke Responsibility to Protect in order to meet the current crisis.  Of course, R2P would require a massive military campaign including ground combat forces, but that seems to have eluded the Lofty Minded of Oxfam.

In their orgy of finger pointing at the West, the folks at Oxfam and other NGOs seem to have overlooked a couple of salient facts.

Fact the first: The states of the African Union have contributed not even penny number one to famine relief in the Horn.

Sure, Kenya is taking a hit with the refugee camp, the largest on Earth, but that does not make up for the utter lack of interest in helping on the part of the AU generally.  This reinforces the perception that while the AU likes to talk about African solutions to African problems, they are unable or unwilling to do more than talk.  Let the West do the heavy lifting seems to be the unstated motto of the Union.

Fact the second:  The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (formerly the Organization of the Islamic Conference) has provided no money, no food, no logistics, no nothing.  Perhaps the OIC has forgotten that Somalia is a majority Muslim state--a member of the organization.  Perhaps the OIC and its over fifty members have forgotten the many strictures regarding the Muslim obligation for charity.  Perhaps the OIC is simply too worried about something they call "Islamophobia" and cartoons of the Prophet to notice a few hundred thousand starving Muslim women and children.  Or, perhaps the OIC and all its members--some of whom have most of the money in the known universe--simply believe it is the Will of Allah that so many perish so wretchedly, and thus it would be blasphemous at best to intervene with food aid.

The West ought to propose to the OIC the following deal.  You pay and we will feed.  You fork over some of your petrodollars and we, particularly we Americans, will provide food at fair market price to be distributed in Somalia or the refugee camps.  You pay for transportation and distribution.  And, if we need to use force to get the food past your fellow Muslims in al-Shabaab, you pay for the bullets necessary.

Of course the money heavy governments of the OIC will not accept this deal, fair as it is.  This means the taxpayers of the US and the other civilized states will have to carry the freight for some generations to come.  It is both a curse and a blessing that the West has learned through past experience that some things, like mass starvation, are simply unacceptable.  So, Westerners will do the heavy lifting while the AU and OIC sit by with folded hands and indifferent expressions.

Frankly, the idea in and of itself flatly rankles the Geek's rear end.  Famine should be equally unacceptable to the governments of the AU and, even more, the OIC.  The fact that both seem totally unconcerned about the bitter reality of life and death in the Somalia of al-Shabaab stands as stark accusation against not only the two organizations but the religious faith which purportedly provides the foundation of one.

Where Is The OIC?

Considering the most prevalent form of violent death for Muslims today is that of being killed by another Muslim, one might be forgiven for thinking that the Organization of the Islamic Council (OIC), which is the world's largest agglutination of Muslim majority states, would be taking action.  Not merely expressing concern or regret but taking collective and forceful action to stop the killing.

It is not that the OIC lacks the means.  Among the member states are the great oil kingdoms and theocracies of the Mideast and Persian Gulf.  Turkey, which provided the current jefe grande of the outfit, has one of the largest armed forces in the world.  Pakistan, another leading and ever-so-vocal member, is no slouch in the big army department.  Saudi Arabia has one of the most well equipped armed forces on the planet.  In short, the OIC has within its number the ways and means of imposing peace.

The OIC obviously lacks the political will to take action.  Usually the OIC has political will dripping out its collective ying-yang.  No problem attaining consensus on a UN measure which would gut Western norms and values regarding free inquiry and expression.  No problem achieving unanimity for condemning Israel about anything and everything.  There isn't ever a problem in gaining a majority for any proposal which would cast the US in the designated role of villain.

So, what's the problem?

One contributory factor is simply that Muslims have no particular hostility to the notion of Muslims killing Muslims.  As events in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan have demonstrated beyond any doubt, Muslims have an unlimited capacity for outrage when an "infidel" kills a Muslim--even a Muslim gunslinger who has a fine record of killing his co-religionists.  When the inevitable happens, a civilian non-combatant is killed, the Muslims go utterly ballistic accusing the "infidels" of "waging war on Islam," intentionally "murdering" the "innocent" and being motivated by some strange syndrome known as "Islamophobia."

Should non-Muslims kill Muslims as was the case in Bosnia the reaction from the Muslim community is to condemn any failure on the part of the "infidel" West to intervene immediately on the side of the endangered Muslims.  If, again as in the case of Bosnia, there is any delay in intervening, Muslims and Muslim groups, including the OIC, will charge "Islamophobia" loudly, stridently, and repeatedly.  Muslim spokesmen, once more including the OIC, will not tolerate any debate, admit that national political processes take time or that the "infidel" states may have interests not served by intervening.  No.  There is and can be no reason for an "infidel" country not to leap to the rescue of some purportedly threatened Muslim community beyond fear of and loathing for Islam.

When Muslims kill Muslims the reaction of the Ummah typically is a large, collective yawn.  If the killing goes on long enough or involves a sufficiently large number of victims, the default response of massive indifference shifts to one of denunciation.  Not denunciation of the Muslim killers.  Oh no, that would be, shall we say, divisive.  At this point it is worth recalling that one of the supreme duties placed upon all believers is the eschewing of any sort of division within the great nation of all Muslims.

Events in Libya have brought the three alternatives into sharp relief.  The insurgents have made it clear that they do not want "infidel" combatants to enter the war on their side.  At the same time they have demanded the "infidels" use air attacks against Gaddafi's forces even though this would mean Muslim deaths.  And, most recently, the insurgents and their supporters have been alleging the West--particularly the US--has been delaying taking action because the people of the West are unconcerned by Muslims slaughtering Muslims.  It's that old devil "Islamophobia" striking again.

Of course should an air campaign result in non-combatant fatalities, the same voices will scream (literally) bloody murder.  Bloody murder because of--you guessed it--"Islamophobia."  Return of the Crusaders and all that rot.

There is only one reason for the US or any Western country to intervene in any manner in Libya.  That is to prevent a Gaddafi victory.  Gaddafi staying in power after crushing the insurgency will mean a world of hurt for the West.  Even if the combination of sanctions and isolation weakens the Gaddafi hold on power, that process will take time.  Time which Gaddafi can and will use to hurt his antagonists to the greatest extent possible.

Yes, other, less pragmatic, less national interest oriented, reasons can be adduced for intervention.  But the power of these reasons is attenuated severely by the inevitable, negative reactions of Muslims, including Libyan Muslims, to the unfortunate fact that "infidel" weapons will kill Muslims.  The repercussions of this aspect of military reality will echo widely and for some time.  They will be amplified by entities and states hostile to the West.  Muslims dead as the result of even the most well-intentioned Western interventions will become part of the narrative holding that the West is waging war on Islam and kills Muslims because of "Islamophobia."

Unless the national interest of assuring it is rid of Gaddafi for once and all prevails, no Western state should intervene in the Libyan insurgency.  The full consequences will prove far more negative than positive.  This may well mean watching Benghazi turned into a slaughterhouse of Biblical proportions.

When and if that happens there will be no need for Western guilt feelings.  There will be no requirement for self-recrimination.  The responsibility will rest not with the US or the West, but with the Arab League, and, even more, the OIC.  The latter group should be the upholder of humanitarian considerations, the staunch supporter of the gentle virtues contained within the Koran, the maintainer of community unity.  The OIC is the collective representative of the Ummah in international politics.  Let it act in the best interests of threatened Muslims rather than seeking to offload the burden and the blame to the "infidels."

The OIC has been surpassingly solicitous of Muslim sensibilities as it has sought the UN imposition of a global gag order on any mention of Islam that is other than uniformly laudatory.  It has been lovingly concerned with the wellbeing of Muslims living in fear of persecution due to "Islamophobia."  Is it not time the OIC show some consideration for Libyan Muslims facing extermination at the hands of the Gaddafi Killers?

As push-comes-to-shove time has occurred in Libya, the statesmen of the West might consider publicly tossing the ball to the OIC.  The Arab League has already taken a half-way measure toward an All Muslim solution with its support of a no-fly zone.  The almost certain failure of the UN Security Council to act in a timely and appropriate way backs the notion of handing over the problem presented by the Libyan insurgency to the OIC.

Should the OIC not pick up the ball and run, hard and fast, to the goal line, then it will have demonstrated to the entire world not only its institutional bankruptcy but also the sheer fraudulence of the Great Muslim Ummah.  If the OIC does act quickly and effectively to end the Muslim on Muslim killing in Libya, it will have provided a genuine service not only to that country but established the important precedent of serving as an All Muslim peace imposition force suitable for conflicts in any Muslim majority state.

Either outcome would constitute a major diplomatic success for the West generally and the US in particular.  So, Deep Thinkers, why not give it a test spin?

The Universal Argument Is All About, "Who Is In Charge Here?"

Both the results of the midterm election and the confused subtexts brought out in the assorted exit and other polls shows that if there is one unifying theme defining American political discourse today it is the matter of who is or should be in charge of power in the US.

The opponents are well defined.  On the one hand is the self-defined elite, the hoi oligoi of academia, media, and politics with a firm belief in its education and status conferred right to rule (for the good of all, of course.)  On the other is the rest of us, the hoi polloi who lack the arrogance, the utterly delusional sense of self entitlement, the prideful certainty that we are so competent, so blessed by wisdom that we can run anyone's life other than our own.

In this conflict as in the confusion over what government is all about, We the People are  no different from our fellow members of the Order of the Belly Button in Europe.  The same conflict has been extant and growing over there for some years.  Most recently it has culminated--as it has here--in a lurch away from the wholesale commitment to social democracy with its firm conviction that the government is the fountainhead of equality, justice, and security.  As in the US the assorted elites of Europe have been outraged, horrified by the notion that the ungrateful "masses" so repeatedly celebrated in the abstract by the elites have turned the worm against their presumed benefactors.

At root in both Europe and the US, the issue in play is the same.  Who will exercise political authority, that is power over the lives, the choices, the values, the beliefs of the individual citizen?  The short answer, apparent right now, is the citizenry generally in both the US and Western Europe no longer trusts the ability or the motives of the central government and those who closely identify with the central government be they politicians, academics, journalists, pundits, labor leaders, and the rest of the elite legion.

As the line in an old TV ad had it, "Please, mother, I'd rather do it myself."

The contest for power pitting supporters of the state against those who desire (demand?) that the state be either limited or shrunk has been raised in profile and embittered in tone by the exigencies of the great budget crunch.  The crunch would have come sooner or later and is in no way directly dependent upon the effects of the Great Recession.  The crunch is the product of the cold equations of population demographics pure and simple.  But the impact of the Great Recession on national bottom lines accelerated the pace of events, sped up the coming of the crunch.

The rapid coming and blooming of the budget crunch assured that people in the US and Western Europe had the impetus to bring an almost subterranean debate over the nature, role, and extent of governmental authority into the open.  For the moment at least, the Big State is on the defensive, but it is far from becoming an endangered species.

One reason for this is the distrust of international aggregates such as the European Union or the UN is far, far greater among the hoi polloi than with the hoi ollogoi.  There is and has been for many years a belief dear to the hearts of elites here and in Europe that the day of the nation-state was over.  To most of the elite the demise of the nation-state was an unmitigated good.  The complete antipathy held for the nation-state was equaled by a passionate affection for multi-national institutions whether the various precursors to the EU, the UN or, closer to us in the States, the Organization of American States.

All multi-national institutions but particularly the UN were wildly applauded and supported by all members in good standing of the elite here and abroad.  In the US the fact that Uncle Sam was often the designated whipping boy of the globe was seen as a sign of the UN's legitimacy.  How could any body in which the countries of the world had an equal voice be mistaken?

We the People have been reluctant in the extreme to embrace the notion that the US was the source of all global evil, all the problems, inequities, and injustices of the human race.  Few of the hoi polloi have been eager to accept the "We are bad" and "Blame America first" slogans of the elite in its exaltation of the UN or other multi-national bodies.

One reason for this as well as for the innate distrust of multi-national bodies is the intuitive understanding within We the People and our counterparts in Europe that not all people, not all cultures, not all countries have identical or even compatible norms, values, imperatives, and goals.  Regardless of the propaganda offered by the elites, there is and has been a pervasive belief that not all people, not all cultures, not all societies, not all countries are fundamentally interchangeable parts of some mythical human whole.

It is this understanding that is in play with the "Clash of Civilizations" so dramatically evident today.  The CoC pits two world views which are diametrically opposed in many basic features in sharp combat over just who will be in charge of the globe in the decades to come.

It is no more xenophobic or racist or "tribal" for a person in the West to want to see the West continue to be the dominant voice in global affairs than it is to say the same of a Muslim, even an advocate of violent political Islam to wish his world view to triumph.  Rather both are seeking to answer the "who is in charge" question in the way which most benefits the personal preference, the individual loyalty.

When a Western European polity determines to ban minarets or burquas it is neither intolerance at work nor the chimera of "islamophobia."  Rather it is the right of the majority culture, the majority society acting as polity, to determine it and not the stranger in our familiar land who is in charge of today and tomorrow.  It is the assertion of a basic human social right to determine its own identity and destiny--regardless of what the self-selected elite might desire.

Banning symbols of Islamic culture is not an attack on Islam.  Actions in Switzerland, France, or even the US in no way threaten the political integrity of majority Muslim polities.  Muslims have an untrammeled right to stone women, force women into garbage sacks, lop of hands and feet of purported criminals, or engage in the other requirements of their faith--in the areas where they are in charge.

At the same time it is well within the purview of Westerners to dictate the requirements of conduct, the tests of membership in their national communities.  It is not, despite the pronouncements of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, an attack on Muslims to assert that they conform to the demands of the nation-states in which they choose to reside.  Nor is it, again regardless of the position adopted by the OIC, for the US or any other Western state to defend itself against the physical attacks mounted by Muslims who advocate violent political Islam.  Neither is it an attack against Islam qua Islam to retaliate when attacked by a Muslim.

The violent aspects of the Clash of Civilizations constitute nothing less than a war.  And, war is nothing but a means of determining just who is in charge.  The Clash, most importantly its violent component, was initiated by Muslims who are strong and fervent believers in violent political Islam.  They sought and continue to seek to be in charge not only in their own, home countries but elsewhere, everywhere if the words of such as Osama bin Laden are to be taken at face value.

We the People and our counterparts throughout the West can be grateful to the advocates of violent political Islam.  Their attacks, their mass murders, their terror has forced us to see just what is abroad in the world.  It has turned out that the danger is not  simply violent political Islam or even the add on of the intrusive Nanny state, but rather the long unchallenged ascendancy of the hoi ollogoi.

For too long we have surrendered power almost without question or protest to those who have proclaimed themselves to be "our betters."  The failure of the self-designated elites to defend our lives and territory against foreign threats gave rise to an increased unwillingness to entrust the elite with power.  As election after election in both Europe and now the US show, the non-elite, the common person, the hoi polloi has belatedly but decisively decided that it is in charge, that it has the power to control its life today and into the future.

And, that, Bucko, is a damn good thing.

The Muslims Keep Wanting To Gag Us

Two stalwart proponents of the "right" of Islam and its adherents everywhere to be free of the slightest whiff of criticism by anyone for any reason, Algeria and Pakistan, have reportedly taken the point in the never ending campaign to stifle free expression in the name of preventing something called "religious defamation."

Diplomats from these two notedly repressive states have been working the halls of the UN seeking support for a draft protocol which will lead to an international convention banning any and every word, drawing, or other expression which might be seen by some hypersensitive Muslim as somehow "defaming" some aspect of Muslim theology, history, current acts (including shooting people while shouting, "Allahu akbar!"), or any other whim of the putatively "offended" individual or group.

The reasoning propelling the quest is disingenuously disguised as an exercise in "human rights." The proponents of this Global Gag Order which include (surprise! surprise) the totality of the member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference allege that any "defamatory" expression impairs the "human right" of the believer to exercise his beliefs.

The effort currently underway in the UN General Assembly goes far beyond the previous exercises in passing non-binding resolutions over the opposition of Western nations, including usually but not always the United States. The goal is to enshrine protections for Muslims and Islam in the code of international law and thus personal conduct.

The OIC is plunging ahead with its new approach in order to ride the momentum started by the ill-advised, poorly thought through and generally dangerous Obama administration decision to cosponsor a semi-gag rule in the UN Human Rights Council along with Egypt. (Egypt is another state where repression is commonplace, persecution of religious minorities a daily fact of life, and where internal anti-"defamation" laws are routinely employed to silence dissent and suppress debate on policies both sacred and secular.)

The OIC pointmen are arguing that it is not so much that they are seeking to limit free expression but "to strike a balance between that right and respect for others." Right, dude, fer sure.

Given that international conventions are applied (at least most of the time) by national courts, there is no doubt the "balance" will be struck at vastly different points by different national judicial systems. This is another case where the differences will work not to the advantage of free expression but to its harm.

The use of the term "balance" as well as the invocation of the totem of "human rights" is a slick move by the OIC and its frontline workers. Both serve to undercut any resistance from the West by waving the magic wand of multi-culturalism along with that of cultural relativism. These two pernicious concepts provide extra grease on an already very slippery slope by inducing a sort of soporific head nodding of agreement among many of the Western elites, the chattering and academic classes in particular.

The US representatives at the relevant UN committees and bodies have, in the words of one, "been waging trench warfare" against the OIC measure. Still, given the slickness of the current packaging, the lengthy timeline involved, and related features, the measure has a good or better chance of ultimate adoption--provided the Muslims are persistent.

There is no doubt but the Muslims will be persistent. Alone among the major religions (and as far as the Geek can determine the minor ones as well) Muslims are so fearful as to the nature, basis, and character of their own faith; its historical record; and the actions of some of its present day adherents as to demand special protection, unique immunity, and international guardianship against the normal hazards of daily intellectual life. Only Muslims cannot take even the most legitimate and factually justified criticism.

Beyond being simply persistent, the Muslims can take comfort that the US population contains large and vocal factions ready, willing, and able to support suppression of expression in the name of religion. An example, an early harbinger of this is to be found in Nebraska.

True, the subject at hand seems far from free expression, but the distance is far, far less than first meets the eye. In the Cornhusker State, the elected University Board of Regents is considering the imposition of a ban on stem cell research far broader than either state law or federal regulation imposes.

The Board of Regents appear to be poised to prohibit any fetal stem cell research using any cell line other than the twenty-one authorized by that famed friend of untrammeled science, George W. Bush. The mere prospect of the restriction in free research has already hampered, even stopped the development of the regenerative science effort at U Nebraska. If passed, it will continue to do so--and probably have ripple effects which will ultimately serve to the detriment of every (non-athletic) department in the university.

The justification provided by backers of the Thou-Shalt-Not-Research measure maintain that they do not intend to restrict freedom of inquiry, but rather to protect the "human rights" of the fetus. They also aver that the scientists should be researching the potential benefits from adult stem cells.

The second point is well taken; scientists should not overlook nor ignore any line of inquiry. Similarly, good science should not and cannot be dictated by religious considerations of an admittedly emotional but yet highly abstract sort.

The ground truth is simply that freedom of inquiry and expression are a very basic human right. Arguably, these two constitute jointly the most powerful driving force in all areas of human progress from the hardest of hard sciences to the ineffable but central matters of ethics and epistemology.

There is a second ground truth in play here. Whether free expression or its twin, free inquiry, there are religiously driven opponents who will take the counsel of their deepest fears, their most hidden of insecurities, and act to suppress speech or inquiry which for whatsoever reason, true or false, good or bad, real or artificial which may cross the individual believer's mind.

Gag orders kill more than "defamation" or lines of scientific inquiry. Gag orders kill societies, nations, cultures. More, by giving expression to the deepest, darkest fears, and insecurities lurking in our midst, the gag order kills our essential humanness.

Bet You Thought Chutzpah Was A Yiddish Word

Pity the poor Saudis. Please, citizens of the world, take pity on Saudi Arabia and the other oil producing sheikdoms of the Mideast. Think of the wretched fate that awaits them if the nations of the globe actually cut oil usage in order to prevent further anthropogenic climate change.

That's right. Consider how the Saudis will no longer be able to support the march of Wahhibism, the growth of Islam, the life styles of the rich and (in)famous princes of the House of Sand. And, while you are at it, consider the dire straits in which Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, even Iraq, and--gasp--Iran will be in if the West, or, perish the thought, China, decreases dependency on Mideast oil.

Bad news confronts the Saudis all around. It was bad enough when Russian production figures showed that the Land of Putin had surpassed the Kingdom as the number one oil exporter in the world. True the numbers are for one month--September--but the handwriting is on the sand. Then there is the possibility that the Russians have continued the old Soviet practice of juggling numbers to inflate the results.

Worse news came from the preliminary climate change talks in Bangkok. The Saudi delegation came to believe that possibly, just maybe, well, there is a chance, that the developed and largest developing economies would actually agree to cut carbon dioxide emissions. This sort of horrid possibility might, just might, mean a lowering of oil use.

Hybrid cars are bad enough. Saudis gnash their teeth over the increasing popularity and decreasing cost of these gas saving abominations. Along with gnashing their teeth, the Saudis muttered threats against the US dollar, hinting for a few days that they would seek another currency on which to base oil prices. That particular bit of coercion did not last long.

As the Bangkok talk fest came to an end, the Saudis shifted from waving the metaphorical scimitar to begging for alms. Blowing off a report by the International Energy Agency which concluded the Saudis along with the other oil principalities would still make out like narco-traffickers despite demand contraction, the capo of the Saudi delegation, Mohammad al-Sabban, averred the Kingdom would need foreign aid.

That's right, bucko, the Saudi had the unmitigated gall to demand a gratuity from all of us to offset the presumed loss of nineteen billion bucks a year starting in 2012. Mr al-Sabban allowed as how the Saudis were beavering away trying to diversify their economy, but, he commented ruefully, "We don't have many resources."

It's enough to make a fellow cry. Thinking about all those poor sheiks, importunate imams, impoverished princes, starving camels. What about all those fine Islamist outreach programs around the world which have been generously funded by Saudi origin petrodollars? What about the assorted Warriors of Wahhibism around the world? Who will keep up the maintenance of the mosques of Mecca if the bucks slow from the current torrent to a mere trickle?

It is a bit difficult to work up sympathy for the Saudis--or any of the oil producing states of the Mideast, or, to be honest, Latin America or Africa. When the amount of money which has flowed into these places is considered, one question follows automatically: What has happened to all the loot?

Rather than address this sort of inquiry, the Mr Sabban instead alleged that the West was pursing a hostile agenda, attacking the oil producing states under the cover of protecting the planet. He accused the political leadership of the West (presumably including the US) of "reducing their dependence on foreign oil."

Fair so far, Mr Sabban.

Not content at belaboring the self-evident, the shrewd Saudi added, "That means you will transfer the burden to developing countries, especially those highly dependent upon the exploitation of oil."

Well, isn't that just a bloody shame, Mr Sabban.

One might be excused for wondering whether or not the Saudis (and the other oil powered autocracies) have any memory whatsoever, or simply a highly selective one. As a good, down home Saudi Mr Sabban should remember how his country ramrodded the twin oil embargoes of the Seventies. At the time, assorted Saudis and other Arabs invoked the name of Allah and the bounty of his blessings as they employed what was called, "the oil weapon."

While the "oil weapon" did not bring the anticipated political victory over the US, the West, and Israel, it did have two results. One was a new emphasis on conservation, which proved astonishingly successful. The other was the creation of enormous sovereign wealth funds, which, in the fullness of time, scarfed up vast holdings of real estate, stock and bond portfolios, and other forms of investment in the US and the rest of the West.

The conservation measures undertaken in the US and Europe as well as the development of better techniques of oil and natural gas recovery which provided alternatives to the Mideast sources should have alerted the Saudis and their Arab brethren that the day would come when the oil no longer flowed--or was no longer needed. Awash in money, neck deep in investments, the oligarchies of the several oil sheikdoms ignored both the future and the needs of the less well positioned in their own countries.

Perhaps it is the insulated luxury in which the Saudi and other aristocrats live, perhaps it is the nature of Islam with its "if Allah wills" component, perhaps it is simply the expectable short-sighted nature of humans generally, but whatever the reason, the Mideast oildoms made no plans for the future, for the day when either the oil itself or the demand for oil slowed and halted. The Bangkok conference must have rung a loud alarm in the heads of the Saudis.

The future has arrived. And, the Saudis among others don't like it. They don't like it because they have made no preparations for the emerging reality.

Too bad. It couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch.

The strongest single reason to support carbon reduction measures has nothing to do with the somewhat questionable science of anthropogenic climate change. Rather it has everything to do with restoring American diplomatic autonomy. Every reduction in the need for oil from the Mideast, or Africa, or Latin America provides an incremental increase in our freedom to act in the world.

Additionally, every dollar that does not go to the oildoms of the Mideast is a dollar which will not be spent in support of Islamism or jihadism. It is a dollar which will not be spent to counter the national and strategic interests of either the US or any close ally. It is a dollar which will not, perhaps quite literally, blow up in our faces.

If the House of Saud or any of the other oil oligarchies are fearful now that the future is upon them and they are quite unprepared for that brutal fact, well, it is not that warning was not given. The demand for "compensation" is not only outrageous in nature, it is unsupportable in fact.

The Saudi king who announced thirty-six years ago that Allah had given the Arabs a sovereign weapon when oil was bestowed upon the Mideast should have known that all weapons can be turned against those who first wield them. This is happening right now with the consequences of the global Great Recession. It will happen to an even greater extent if and when the developed and major developing economies decide to shift from hydrocarbon prime movers to alternatives.

One can be forgiven for looking forward with a fair measure of schadenfreuden to the future when the Saudis can look on as the pumps fall silent and the paint once again peels from the walls of the Great Mosque.

It is, after all, the Will of Allah.

The World--The Good, The Bad And The Ugly

Well, war fans, Coach Obama has announced the new game plan for the Afghanistan venue. As a hot wash, it looks good. At least it has all the features widely touted by a counterinsurgency specialist at all the US military schools ten and more years ago.

According to the model presented back then, an insurgency had several major components. All of them had to be addressed with effect if the battle for the human terrain was to be won by the counterinsurgents.

The starting point of the model was simply that most people in an insurgent environment simply want to be left alone, left in peace to do their own thing, raise their children and hope for a better life in the future. That starting condition is met in Afghanistan.

Focusing on the insurgent force(s) the model posited three circles, nested one inside the other.

The outer, largest circle was the passive mass support base, people who were willing to cooperate with the insurgents as long as doing so required minimal risk.

The next circle was the active mass support base. This group provided direct, material support to the insurgency including fighters both full and part-time.

Finally there was the hard core insurgents. The full-time, fiercely dedicated militants who were ready and able to give their all to achieve the goal of the insurgency.

On the counterinsurgent side the circles were equal and opposite. The government had its own hard core, its own active mass support base and an outer fringe of passive supporters.

Surrounding both sets of circles was the majority of the population. The ever present people in the middle whose support and allegiance or at least tacit acceptance would be necessary to final victory by either side.

The new strategy announced by President Obama contains features which are explicitly directed to the overlapping tasks of killing the hard core insurgents, demobilizing support from the insurgent active and passive mass support base and seeking to attract members of the uncommitted majority to the government's passive (and it is to be hoped, active) mass support base. This is precisely the approach which should have been taken by "shock-and-awe" delusionist Rumsfeld and the rest of the neocon ninnies at the get-go seven plus years ago.

(That assessment is given with the predicate that for domestic political reasons and to placate the sensitivities of High Minded Western Europeans, the US had rejected the rational approach of a punitive expedition which would have been quick, dirty, conclusive and left Afghanistan as it was found--a collection of tribes in uneasy coexistence open to Pakistani hegemony.)

The Obama strategy kind of, sort of addresses the sanctuary problem. Doing something effective with the FATA is absolutely essential if the US is going to achieve the necessary strategic minimum of abating the threat of transnational terror acts planned and commanded from that region.

Cross-border sanctuaries bedeviled the US throughout the War in Vietnam. Bombing raids and cross-border incursions never settled the problem and, arguably, enhanced them. The use of deep penetration special operations forces including indigeneous but American led paramilitary groups provided the start of a solution but were never carried out for sufficient duration with sufficient forces.

The single largest swamp of doubt in the Obama strategy is the will and capacity of Pakistan to work with positive results to end the insurgency in the FATA. So far there is no indication that Islamabad either understands the counterinsurgency model outlined above or, if it does, has both the will and capacity to at accordingly.

The Pakistani military and paramilitary forces have undertaken any number of highly visible operations in the FATA but without noticable effect. The sweeps have generated refugees and resentments in wholesale quantities which has (if history is a guide) benefited the insurgents and only the insurgents.

The "peace" agreements recently concluded with "moderate" Islamists are not any sign of Islamabad demobilizing support for the Taliban insurgents. The men who signed on behalf of the "moderate" Islamists are themselves neither moderate nor pro-status quo. The groups which hold sway now in Swat and areas of the FATA are totalists in pursuit of the same ends as the trigger-pullers and suicide vest wearers. Identity of ends implies identity of interests, identity of support for Islamism and identity of opposition to the current regime.

Without Pakistan as a full and effective collaborator in the border area, the US in Afghanistan is in the same position as it was with relationship to Cambodia and Laos during the War in Vietnam. The insurgents and their external supporters have both base areas and lines of supply readily available on soil controlled by ineffectual or pro-insurgent governments.

Overall, the preliminary assessment of Coach Obama's new game plan must be mixed. It does not have a real thrust to the sanctuary conundrum. It is very good on paper in the pure counter insurgency component. But, paper ain't practice. And, there is a very wide and deep gulf of difficulty between the words on paper and the doings in the field.

So much for the "good." Now for the "bad."

The International Criminal Court (ICC) tops the list of the bad today. This creation of the High Minded and Lofty Thinking legalists of Europe and elsewhere has shown once more (if such needed to be demonstrated yet again) that High Minded behavior that ignores the messy realities of human activity automatically invokes the Law of Unintended Consequences. Take a dekko--

Omar Bahsir has cocked a snoot at the ICC and the High Minded generally with his recent trips. True, he has been properly cautious flying only to countries coterminous with Sudan. (The first real, albeit theoretical risk will come when and if Omar jets off to Doha for the Arab League get together.)

The Trips of Omar have not been intended nor have they served simply to make a rude gesture toward the ICC. They have been intended to underscore the degree of antipathy held by the African Union and, more to the point, the Arab League for the ICC issued arrest warrant. They also serve to ramp up the pressure on the UN Security Council to suspend the warrant.

The Tribulations of Omar have had the unintended consequence of highlighting the alleged "double standard" held by the West regarding presumed violations perpetrated by the IDF in Gaza. This argument will gain great force with the accusations currently hurled at Israel regarding the actions of its forces during Operation Cast Lead.

Then, of course, the ICC action put the refugees of Darfur squarely in the cross hairs. The ejection of major international aid groups and other subsequent actions by Omar Bashir's regime were both predictable and (in the eyes of the regime) justified. Considering that the regime has shown itself quite willing to see the population of Darfur die in large numbers, there is no reason to believe that it will suddenly turn tender in its affections for the displaced and mal-treated Muslims of the predominantly black refugee population.

There is also no reason to believe that threats to hold Bashir responsible for the consequences of the ejection of aid workers such as were made by SecState Clinton prior to her we-feel-your-pain visit to Mexico will have any useful effect. How many arrest warrants can the ICC issue on one man? How many new charges can it bring? What difference will that make?

The ICC and its High Minded backers are definitely "bad" on this issue. One can only hope that the Security Council will bring some political sanity to the matter. That would be "good."

And now, the "ugly."

Seeing the "ugly" in international affairs in the past few days isn't as hard as it seems. The UN Human Rights Council runs away with the title.

And, why is that?

By a vote of 23-11 with 13 abstentions, the foes of free expression and those of a cowardly disposition passed the measure long pushed by the Organisation of the Islamic Conference which seeks to ban something called "defamation of religion."

The relevant language reads, "Defamation of religion is a serious affront to human dignity leading to a restriction on the freedom of adherents and inciting religious violence." Zeroing in on the real deal, the resolution continues, "Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism."

Oy veh! The chutzpah of the OIC is nothing short of overwhelming. Either that or the panjandrums of the group are living in an alternative reality. While the resolution has no binding effect and similar language has been removed from the draft outcome document for Durban II, this exercise in Orwellian distortion and speech suppression is nonetheless the nose of the camel in the tent of the West.

There are already misguided public opinion molders and political figures in Western countries such as the goo-brained Canadian whose name the Geek gags at writing who have honestly (?) argued that religions and their adherents deserve special protection lest sensitivities be irritated. By this reasoning (if that word is accurate) the British medical journal Lancet deserves severe castigation for having editorially accused Pope Benedict XVI of having "publicly distorted science" in his recent remarks regarding the non-utility of condoms in preventing HIV infection.

Hey, the Pope likes cats. He's gotta be a sensitive sort of guy, right? And, his religious postulates regarding sexual conduct are a matter of Church doctrine. He and they have been defamed within the scope of the wording adopted by the Human Rights Council.

Suppressing speech, expression generally, inquiry, are all ugly. Almost as ugly as shouting, "Allahu akbar" while flying an aircraft into a building, pushing the clicker on a suicide vest while in a mosque or stoning, burning or beheading women. But, the Geek can't write that, given that Islam is "defamed" by his words.

Right. Fer sure, dudes.