Oil Keeps Flowing Despite Unrest, but High Prices Jangle Nerves Worldwide

Oil Keeps Flowing Despite Unrest, but High Prices Jangle Nerves Worldwide

Sunday, February 20, 2011

 By STEVEN ERLANGER, The New York Times

PARIS -- The turmoil in North Africa and the Middle East has helped drive oil prices up to more than $102 a barrel for an important benchmark crude, Brent, although so far there have been no significant disruptions in production or supply, according to experts at the International Energy Agency here.
While Egypt and Tunisia have little oil, Libya is one of Africa's largest holders of crude oil reserves, Algeria and Iran are major suppliers and Bahrain and Yemen both border Saudi Arabia on the peninsula that produces most of the world's oil. Together, Libya, Algeria, Yemen, Bahrain and Iran represent about 10 percent of global oil production.

Oil markets are famously skittish, especially when there is even the possibility of disruptions in the Middle East and North Africa, which account for some 35 percent of the world's oil production and a greater percentage of the world's known reserves.
That nervousness is likely to spread elsewhere, with so many economies still fragile in the wake of the worldwide economic downturn and with the possibility that higher crude prices could lead to further increases in food prices. The high cost of food has already led to unrest in several countries, even before political revolts began in the Middle East.
The increased price of energy is a "burden that can be a detriment to the global economic recovery," said Nobuo Tanaka, the executive director of the International Energy Agency.
Brent is a global benchmark crude oil that is produced in the North Sea and traded in London. It is typically the benchmark that is used to set the price for most of the oil from the Middle East. Another benchmark crude, West Texas Intermediate, closed at $86.20 a barrel on Friday. Each benchmark has an impact on gasoline prices in the United States, with the East Coast more affected by the Brent prices than other regions.
The reserves in the Middle East and North Africa (known as the MENA countries), while long important, have grown even more critical as demand for oil increases. Prices have risen about 30 percent since September, reaching their highest level since September 2008.
Those who track oil prices are especially worried about the renewed turmoil in Iran and the possibility of unrest spreading from Bahrain to Saudi Arabia, which could have a major impact on oil's price and its availability.
Richard H. Jones, the energy agency's deputy executive director and a former American diplomat in the Middle East, said that about 17 million barrels of oil passed through the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz every day. "So if that shuts down, we're in big trouble," he said.
But so far, Mr. Jones said, the effects of the regional turmoil have been small. Egyptian production and transportation of natural gas have continued despite an explosion at a pipeline in the Sinai as the demonstrations against President Hosni Mubarak were under way. (An Egyptian investigator said four gunmen bombed the pipeline.) Although there have been labor protests among workers at the Suez Canal, so far analysts have said there is no danger of the vital waterway being affected by the country's political upheaval.
The unrest in Libya, while serious, has not disrupted its production of oil. Mr. Jones and Didier Houssin, who runs the directorate for energy markets and security at the International Energy Agency, said that Libya was not a major producer, selling "only a little over one million barrels a day" and representing about 2 percent of world production. If there were to be a disruption of supplies from Libya, "We can cope," Mr. Jones said.
Still, a Deutsche Bank commodities analyst, Soozhana Choi, said, "As antigovernment protests have spread from Tunisia and Egypt to the streets of Bahrain, Yemen and OPEC member countries Algeria, Libya and Iran, concerns about geopolitical risk and the potential for supply disruptions have returned aggressively" to the oil market.
The International Energy Agency monitors strategic oil reserves that total about 1.6 billion barrels, Mr. Tanaka said. The agency has sometimes released reserves to smooth out global oil prices, including in the aftermath of the Persian Gulf war of 1991 and Hurricane Katrina in 2005.
The agency's chief economist, Fatih Birol, said that with Brent crude over $100 a barrel, "we are entering a danger zone," he said, with oil prices "creating inflationary pressures and risk for economic recovery."
For now, although oil stocks are declining with increased consumption, "there is still plenty of spare production capacity, especially in OPEC countries," Mr. Tanaka said.
Robert B. Zoellick, president of the World Bank, speaking on Saturday at a Group of 20 meeting, said that the Saudis in particular had indicated that they had significant spare capacity, which may help to keep markets calm.
But over the past two years, Mr. Zoellick said, "There is a much closer connection between food and energy prices." Part of the reason is biofuels, he said, but oil is also vital for fertilizers, transportation and agricultural equipment, especially in the developing world, where demand is increasing.
While the world is moving toward more renewable energy sources and re-examining nuclear power, it will be dependent on fossil fuels for years to come, Mr. Birol said. For the future, "90 percent of growth in oil production will have to be met by MENA countries," he said. "If not, we're in trouble."

This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

Source : Post Gazzette

What Were the Ulama Doing in Tahrir Square? Al-Azhar and the Narrative of Resistance to Oppression -- Sightings

It has been a week since the people of Egypt, with the help of the Army, rid themselves of their ruler of 30 years.  Today they stage a victory march in Cairo.  Egypt's revolution came after Tunisia ran off it's dictatorship.  Last Friday we wondered what would happen next.  The answer has been a series of protests in places like Yemen, Libya, and Bahrain.  All three have governments that grant few rights to the people.  At the same time, Iran has cracked down on all opposition.  It appears that something is in the water, and it's not going away soon.  But as we wonder about the future of the Middle East, there is the ever present question of the role of Islam in the future of this region.  The idea that religion will play no role is simply silly.  Islam plays a significant role in these societies, and will continue to do so in the future.  But what will that look like?

Malika Zeghal wrote a piece for Sightings yesterday that offers important insight.  She notes the presence of the ulama or religious scholars from the national al-Azhar University, the leading Islamic university in the world.  These scholars were in Tahrir Square, even though the Grand Imam -- appointed by the Government and answerable to the Government (sort of like the English Bishops) was opposing the protests.  Perhaps Islam isn't as monolithic as some would have us think.  In any case, this is a very intriguing analysis worth our attention. 

*******************

Sightings 2/17/2011

What Were the Ulama Doing in Tahrir Square?

Al-Azhar and the Narrative

of Resistance to Oppression

-- Malika Zeghal

Over the course of the Egyptian uprising, religious scholars in and beyond Egypt have taken positions against or in favor of the revolution. The dividing line between their views depends on the relationship of the ulama with state authorities in the region, which echoes a classical contention in the tradition of Sunni Islam.

The ulama of Sunni Islam have had an ambiguous partnership with the men governing them. The ideal religious scholar is portrayed as a courageous man of learning and piety who denounces injustice and dares to speak truth to tyrants. Nonetheless, pragmatism has also been at the core of the Sunni ulama’s relationship with political powers, along with a deep pessimism about the grim realities of politics, which they often hoped to escape. In the Middle East, modern politics has redefined the ulama’s place in society, causing them to submit to the state and nationalizing their institutions into state bureaucracies.

For example, al-Azhar was nationalized in 1961 by Egyptian president Gamal Abd al-Nasser. Al-Azhar is officially represented by its Grand Imam, who has the rank of minister, is appointed by the president of the Republic and reports directly to him. Given this status, the official ulama usually follow the directives of the regime and have narrow margins of maneuver. Critiques of the regime by Grand Imams are rare and often expressed with enough subtlety so as not to generate controversy. However the domestication of al-Azhar by the state has not prevented less official ulama from playing a significant public role nationally and beyond.

Azharites, recognizable by their white and red tarbushes, white collars, and long gray robes, gathered in Tahrir Square in small groups during the protests, reminding us of the sociological and political diversity of al-Azhar as an academic and religious institution. One day before the resignation of Mubarak, Shaykh Muhammad Jebril, who studied at al-Azhar, led the Friday prayer in Tahrir Square. The Azharite presence, as well as the images of Muslims and Copts protecting each other during prayers, calls to mind the narrative of the 1919 revolution. That revolution was one of the last great public protests in which Azharites participated as a significant body alongside more secular groups, representing al-Azhar as a popular and national institution.

Shaykh Ahmad al-Tayyib, Grand Imam of al-Azhar since 2010, has been cautious in his statements regarding the protests, calling for restraint on the parts of the demonstrators and the regime. He asked demonstrators to go home after Mubarak’s departure, adding that protest is “illegitimate in Islam.” His line of reasoning echoed a classic position in Sunni Islam: namely, that obedience to the state, even to a tyrant, is better than fitna, or dissension.

On the other hand, Muhammad Rafi al-Tahtawi, the official spokesperson for al-Azhar, resigned in order to join the demonstrators in Tahrir Square. When a Saudi Mufti issued a fatwa condemning the Egyptian demonstrators, some Azharites denounced it. They argued that it was irrelevant because it was ordered by the Saudi government and was therefore “tainted by politics” (musayyasa). For their part, the Egyptian “Ulama’s Front” (jabhat al-ulama), a small group of Azharites whose history goes back to the 1940s, launched verbal attacks during the protests against the head of al-Azhar and the Mufti of Egypt, because they appeared to be too close to Mubarak’s regime. This mix of positions shows that al-Azhar is not a homogeneous institution, but rather reflects the range of Egyptian politics.

The anti-regime voices are those of “peripheral ulama,” those Azharite graduates who do not necessarily work in the religious institution but for whom their own identity as Azharites is crucial. One of the most famous of these figures is Dr. Yusuf al-Qaradhawi, a graduate of al-Azhar who resides in Qatar. He has gained an international reputation and audience through his television show on al-Jazeera “Sharia and Life.”

Al-Qaradhawi appeared on al-Jazeera early on in the Tunisian crisis. Showing sensitivity to the plight of Muhammad Bouazizi, he declared that self-immolation and suicide in general are contrary to Islam, but that given the circumstances, those who had committed this type of suicide should not be condemned. He encouraged the Tunisian protesters to continue their fight. Later, he made the same appeal to the Egyptian demonstrators, urging them to oust Mubarak. After the fall of Mubarak, Shaykh Ahmed al-Tayyeb declared that he wanted the Grand Imam to be elected by a committee of ulama, and that the independence of al-Azhar should be a constitutional principle.

Religious state and non-state authorities have entered into a discussion about the legitimacy of political resistance. Al-Azhar, through the presence of some of its members in Tahrir Square, as well as through its more peripheral voices and the Grand Imam’s call for al-Azhar’s independence, has shown its relevance to the recent political mobilization and has asserted its role in shaping a narrative of hope, empowerment, and resistance against tyranny.

Malika Zeghal is Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Professor in Contemporary Islamic Thought and Life at Harvard University.

----------

In this month's Religion and Culture Web Forum, Jessica DeCou offers a comic interpretation of the theology of Karl Barth, bringing his work into a surprising and fruitful dialogue with the comedy of Craig Ferguson. Both men, she contends, “employ similar forms of humor in their efforts to unmask the absurdity and irrationality of our submission to arbitrary human powers.” The humor of Barth and Ferguson alike stresses human limitation against illusory deification. DeCou argues for understanding both the humor and the famous combativeness of Barth's theology as part of this single project, carried out against modern Neo-Protestant theology. The Religion and Culture Web Forum is at: http://divinity.uchicago.edu/martycenter/publications/webforum/

----------

Sightings comes from the Martin Marty Center at the University of Chicago Divinity School.



Revolution -- Sightings (Martin Marty)

The Egyptian Revolution is in phase 2.  Phase 1 involved ridding itself of its out-of-touch dictator, now it must create a credible and free nation-state.  That will take time and a lot of hard work, and a great deal of sacrifice on the part of the Military, which has been the foundation of the existing system for nearly 6 decades.  We wonder what the future will look like -- will it be "secular"?  Martin Marty examines these questions, noting with irony that many of this calling for Egypt to be secular are the very ones working to impose their "religion" on the American system. 

Before you read Monday's post here on Wednesday, I want to announce that the Academy of Parish Clergy has officially named Marty's important book Building Cultures of Trust as its Book of the Year at our 2011 Annual Meeting where Marty is speaking to us.  So, yes, I've been in the company of Dr. Marty today.

*************************************************

Sightings 2/14/2011

Revolution

-- Martin E. Marty

“C’est une révolte,” said King Louis XVI to his messenger about events on July 14, 1789. “Non, Sire, C’est une révolution,” the Duc de La Rochefoucauld-Liancourt corrected him. With this exchange Hannah Arendt pointed to a difference between a revolt—we have seen many of such—and a revolution, which we saw on television and kindred instruments last week in Egypt. The Wall Street Journal was listening, as weren’t we all, to the shouts of protesters in Cairo and elsewhere. “[I]t’s worth noting that the words heard most often . . . have been ‘dignity,’ ‘modernity,’ ‘freedom,’ ‘jobs.’” Words like these “appear to have displaced Allah as the galvanizing ideas for the young in Egypt and Tunisia.”

Add to their words one more, advanced by columnists left, right, and center: it was a “secular” revolution. And millions cheered. They keep hoping that in the chancy post-revolutionary days, Egypt will stay “secular.” Similarly, many have been watching Turkey, as it makes its way among polities and policies. They hope that, however much its people give voice to religious elements, it will also stay “secular.” In Egypt’s case, the hope of millions is that there will be no official religion or that no overwhelming religious voice--in this case the waiting-in-the-wings Muslim Brotherhood—will win at the expense of the religious and other freedoms of others.

One hears first from the talking-heads among some cable TV network commentators and their print-media colleagues, who in the Egyptian case hope for secular resolutions, and then to those same heads commenting on domestic polities where they do all they can to promote legal privileging of one particular religious ethos and framework: theirs. Each month religious newswriters receive dozens of notices that on local, state, and national levels in America there are school-board meetings, legislative proposals and court cases focused on attempts to privilege a particular “God” in salutes, pledges, and tax-supported expressions at the expense of others.

If Egypt succeeds in living with a novus ordo seclorum, that national slogan you can read on your dollar bills, a “new order of ages,” it will match what the American founders succeeded in doing through an article of the U. S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and with which most of us happily lived in less threatening times than our own. Time for a pause. Critics ask: What’s so good about “secular,” whether in Egypt and the Muslim world or in America and the Western-influenced Christian or “Judeo-Christian” world? Not everything by any means is “good.” The “secular” can turn ideological, as in “secularism.” It can represent a beliefless, soulless spiritual landscape that leaves whole publics in the shallows. The downsides are obvious, but . . .

If Europe and North America are turning ever more secular, it is not just because governments are not legally privileging religion. The zones of voluntary expression in life within these spheres are enormous, and the freedom to make use of religious symbols and arguments is almost limitless in those zones. “Secular” in the legal sphere can be liberating. The downgrading of the “religious” in the secular-turning orbits, be it noted, results chiefly from indifference, distraction, spiritual laziness, or godless free choice by citizens. Fearful as we are that Egypt in its post-revolution might turn officially “religious,” one hopes that it can become “secular,” in ways we were intended to be.


References

Hannah Arendt,On Revolution (Penguin Books, 1965).

"Egypt After Mubarak," Wall Street Journal, February 12, 2011.



Martin E. Marty's biography, current projects, publications, and contact information can be found at http://www.illuminos.com/.



----------



In this month's Religion and Culture Web Forum, Jessica DeCou offers a comic interpretation of the theology of Karl Barth, bringing his work into a surprising and fruitful dialogue with the comedy of Craig Ferguson. Both men, she contends, “employ similar forms of humor in their efforts to unmask the absurdity and irrationality of our submission to arbitrary human powers.” The humor of Barth and Ferguson alike stresses human limitation against illusory deification. DeCou argues for understanding both the humor and the famous combativeness of Barth's theology as part of this single project, carried out against modern Neo-Protestant theology. The Religion and Culture Web Forum is at: http://divinity.uchicago.edu/martycenter/publications/webforum/


----------


Sightings comes from the Martin Marty Center at the University of Chicago Divinity School.
http://divinity.uchicago.edu/martycenter/

Mubarak out in Egypt

Hosni Mubarak is out as President of Egypt.

Here is President Obama's speech earlier today.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Revolution 2.0 -- Egypt gains a chance for freedom!

Today something truly important has occurred.  A non-violent revolution pushed a dictator (one of our dictators) from power.  The joy being expressed in Tahrir Square in Cairo reminds me of the night the Berlin Wall fell in 1989.  I remember watching that event unfold on live TV.   The world that I had known from birth -- I was 31 at the time -- had begun to crumble.  With the fall of the Berlin Wall a series of changes in the world began -- the old Soviet Empire itself began to crumble.  I understand that the process of democratization continues, but it had a beginning.

Well today is a day as historic as that day in 1989.  With the resignation of Hosni Mubarak, who seemed intent on dragging this out as long as possible, hoping in one way or another to come out on top, a new day has dawned for the Egyptian people.  Egypt is the largest and most important nation in the Arab world.  It is predominantly Muslim, but it has a significant (10% or so) Christian minority.  What happens in Egypt will have repercussions elsewhere, which is why the Saudi's were pushing back, even promising to make up and shortfall if American pulled it's support.   The cat is out of the bag.

The title Revolution 2.0 comes from a statement made by Wael Ghonim, the Google executive, whose Facebook page gave the platform upon which this revolution was launched.  He gave full credit to Facebook because it gave the people a way of going around state media and organize themselves.  Ghonim has been very forceful in saying that he's not the hero and has no interest in being the leader of the revolution.  But he makes an important case for the importance of social media.  It is going to be more and more difficult for autocratic governments to control the flow of information.  Yes, social media, including blogs, can be used for evil as well as good, but again the cat is out of the bag.  The technology is here to stay and will continue to evolve.   It needn't be feared but needs to be reflected.

Now, one further comment.  It is interesting that yesterday we were surprised by Mubarak's failure to resign, as rumor was suggesting.  It would seem to be that Mubarak was hoping to do one of two things -- either cow his opponents into going home by his intransigent words or provoke a violent response -- so he could order a crackdown (the Army seemingly unwilling to intervene as long as the protests remained non-violent).  When the people stayed in the square but remained non-violent, the regime knew the game was up and Mubarak gave way to the Military, who now have the job of maintaining enough stability for a new system to emerge that would represent the full aspirations of the Egyptian people.  

Another word from Wael Ghonim needs to be heard.  The reason why this revolution has succeeded to this point and why there is hope for something really wonderful to come is that the fear that had pervaded the national psyche had been broken.  The people he said had decided it better to die for a good cause than to live for nothing.  When fear no longer holds, then the forces of oppression can no longer control the situation.

Today Egypt has taken the first step to become a truly free people.  Let us pray for their future and stand with the people as they make a new life for themselves.   

The Revolution Continues

We continue to watch this standoff between an aging and out-of-touch Egyptian government and the growing numbers of people who are fed up with the old ways and want to begin the new today.  They feel insulted when their leaders say that they're not ready for democracy.  They feel insulted when their leaders patronize them by complimenting the young people, but then tell them to go home, that they've been heard.  They're feeling insulted when their leaders say that the protests are insulting Egypt.

Although the crowds ebb and flow, on the primary protest days, the crowds get bigger.  They're young and old, male and female, Muslim and Christian.  Yes, that last piece needs to be lifted up -- both Muslim and Christian voices are in the crowd.  This isn't Iran in 1979.  There is no Khomeini waiting in the wings.  This doesn't appear to be ideologically driven.  In fact, the hero of this revolution is a young Google executive who set up a Facebook page honoring a young man who was beaten to death by the police, a Facebook page that launched the protests.  The cat is out of the bag and putting it back in will not be easy.  

The government thinks it can wait things out, but the protesters are not heeding the warnings to go home.  They're not going to be satisfied with a half-revolution with promises to study constitutional changes.  They want to see the end of emergency powers and the formation of a true interim government that is run by members of the current regime.

As Tom Friedman notes, the key maybe the Army, which to this point is staying neutral.  But if they understand that Mubarak is the past and this crowd is the future, perhaps (especially with some USA urging) will go with the future.  Remember that 50% of Egyptians are under 25.  They've known only repression and want something better.  Time will tell as to who will win out, but today we must say -- "We are all Egyptians."

Even Some Conservatives Think Glenn Beck is Nuts

Conservative Stalwart Bill Kristol has called out Glenn Beck on his nonsensical rantings about the situation in Egypt. I have been amazed by the Republican media's talking points over the past week. Basically, the Republican media establishment has come out in support of dictator Hosni Mubarak & his government, all in the name of undermining President Obama. Republican Supreme Leader Rush Limbaugh, along with Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and much of Fox-Non-News have been leading the way in this particular anti-Obama effort. But in the process, they have come away looking absolutely ridiculous.

Finally, some Conservatives are beginning to speak up, unable to deal with the level of crazy coming from their own ranks.

And despite all of this...what does Obama do? He legitimizes Fox-Non-News (a political organization) by appearing on their network over the weekend. This is the kind of nonsense that gives me a headache about Obama & Co.


Related

Glenn Beck - The Biggest Con Artist in America

Tea Party Terrorist Planned to Kill ACLU Staff

Sarah Palin is Clueless about Egypt

...and just about everything else for that matter.

Jack Cafferty let her have it in his commentary yesterday.



One part of me hopes that she will run for President. But another part of me knows that the American people are actually boneheaded enough to elect her, so I can't really embrace that idea. I would really like to see the media stop giving this woman coverage, as if she is some who is knowledgeable, relevant or even credible. The free coverage only helps her build a brand that will put money in the bank for her and extend her 15 minutes of fame. No other VP candidate in history (who lost) has received anything remotely close to this kind of coverage...and most of those major VP candidates were actually qualified for the job. Why is the media doing this? All week...I have heard/seen, in one form or another, this constant coverage of Palin in the context of - 'What does Palin think about Egypt'? or 'What does Palin think about Obama's handling of the situation in the Middle East'? As if anyone cares. Why does the media act as if every event has to be validated or analyzed by Sarah Palin? This is a woman who recently forgot to sign her name on a Trademark application. And she thinks she is qualified to be President?

Stop giving this woman coverage.... please.

Birth Pains of the New Caliphate

It's been a couple of years since I've seriously broached this topic. The recent riotous uprising in Egypt, categorized by the usual American media suspects as attempts at "democracy", bring the topic clearly back to relevancy. In actuality, the topic has always been relevant, but it always takes something major to wake up the American public.

For the great unwashed, and for those media talking heads who nearly lost their own heads this past week at the hands of these alleged democracy-loving demonstrators, let's do a quick refresher on just what exactly is the Islamic "caliphate", and why we all should be concerned about it.

A very long story begins in the first half of the 7th century A.D. with the birth of Islam under it's founder, Muhammad, a man believed by followers of that faith to be the greatest and final messenger of God. Muhammad first spread this new faith by peaceful preaching and teaching, but he and his followers eventually turned to violent and forcible means.

In the aftermath of Muhammad's death in 632, physical and spiritual battles arose for control of Islam by two groups who we continue that struggle today, 1,500 years later -  the Sunni and the Shiites. The Sunni were larger and stronger, and overall Islamic power was centralized under a leader who was known as the 'Caliph', the successor to Muhammad. The lands and peoples over which the Caliph held control became known as the Islamic Caliphate.

For centuries this Caliphate spread by conquest known as 'Jihad' throughout the lands of the Middle East, across northern Africa, and into both Spain and eastern Europe. By the end of the 17th century, just before the emergence of America as a nation and culture, the Caliphate controlled an area as large as the old Roman Empire.


The end finally began to come for the Islamic Caliphate on the eve of the American birth when, in 1774, it surrendered large portions of control to the emerging Russian nation. Then the Ottoman Empire, which controlled the Caliphate over it's final four centuries, went into World War I on the side of the Axis powers, the losing side.

In the aftermath of defeat in World War I, secular power took charge in Turkey, and the Caliphate was formally abolished. Ever since that time, various religious and military leaders have vowed to return the Caliphate to power, most notably the Muslim Brotherhood. That has been and remains the goal of the worldwide movement known to many today as "radical Islam", to take control first of the Middle East, and then begin to spread the Caliphate around the region, to neighboring nations, and eventually around the entire world.

The Muslim Brotherhood is at the very core of the troubles in the Middle East today. The Brotherhood has for decades been sparking, fomenting, and supporting uprisings through it's creations such as al Qaeda and Hamas among dozens of others. Their stated goals are: the reestablishment of the Caliphate, the reunification of their nation (the Ummah), the institution of strict Islamic religious law (Shariah), and the spread of the Caliphate around the world.

They are behind the uprisings that have taken place recently or are currently taking place across the Arabic world from Egypt to Jordan, from Tunisia to Syria, from Libya to Lebanon. While these alleged "popular uprisings" for "democratic reforms" topple various types of secular institutional governments, make no mistake about what the new replacement governments will become. They will become Islamic theocracies, either outright or by proxy control.

As the Muslim Brotherhood exercises and expands it's control by whipping up tens of thousands at the grass-roots level to violently demonstrate and forcibly coerce change, the results will not be anything like American or even European democracy. What we are seeing in Egypt and across the Middle East, and will continue to see there, in Africa, and will see at some point in every nation of the world during this century, are the birth pains of the new Caliphate.

Millions of Americans will be glued to their television sets for hours this weekend to watch a football game. They will gorge on tons of food and snack treats, scarf down alcoholic and carbonated beverages by the truck load, and gamble away hard-earned money on pools and bets. Meanwhile, a much bigger, deadlier, and far more important game will be playing out on the other side of the world.

Americans who continue to consider a few weeks, months, or even a couple years of largely quiet times in the struggle against radical Islam as anything other than a lull in the storm are kidding themselves. More than that, they are passively ignoring the struggle that will be one of the most vital across their world as they age. It is the struggle that will define the world in which their children and grandchildren live out this century. It is one that will be forced upon them by the Caliphate now in the struggles of it's own rebirth.

S. . .S. . .S. . .

Paul Allen and Bill Gates, 1981

Beth Crowley, Boston

No, the international Morse code distress symbol is . . .  — — — . . .  The above stands not for SOS but for “Scottsdale, Seattle, San Francisco.”  That’s where I’ve been since last Saturday.  Not complaining mind you, certainly not with all that’s been going on back home in the East.  That’s the Northeast United States and the Eastern Mediterranean.  Who would have thought five feet of snow on the ground in Boston (still counting) and feats of immeasurable depth in the Mediterranean basin? 

Khalil Hanmra, Associated Press

What is the world coming to?  More importantly, where is it headed?  I have absolutely no idea, which I’m pretty sure puts me in the distinguished company of its governments, journalists, and wags.  Then again, perhaps I didn’t catch their prediction that the most dangerous, volatile region in the world would be turned upside down in a matter of hours by Facebook and Twitter.  Seems reminiscent of that Humpty Dumpty 1989 Berlin moment when an utterly surprised world chanted together, “Wall?  Coming down?  What Wall?”

We are witness to an Internet revolution in every sense of the phrase.  And here I am, on a serendipitous pilgrimage to the holiest sites of its enabling: Seattle and its environs (Microsoft calls neighboring Redmond home) and the San Francisco Bay area with not only Silicon Valley but the Stanford Research Institute that on October 29, 1969 received the first Internet message ever (the two letters “LO” out of an attempt to send “LOGIN”) out of Los Angeles—the next stop on my Revelation book tour. 

Log noting first Internet message, originating out of U.C.L.A.

As for Scottsdale’s role in all this history, well, let’s just say it’s home to GoDaddy, today’s largest Internet domain registrar business…and a television sponsor on this Sunday’s broadcast of the Super Bowl—GO STEELERS (just had to sneak that in). 

Frank Lloyd Wright's Taliesin West

Not Frank Lloyd Wright

But these cities are known for a lot more, and with good reason.  Each has its own unique beauty and character.  Frank Lloyd Wright set up his “winter camp” in Scottsdale in 1937, now called Taliesin West, and forever changed this conservative region’s architecture.  Seattle is known for its many beautiful views, liberal thoughts, and musical groups but is Mecca to coffee addicts everywhere and home to the very first shop of the “Microsoft” of the coffee world: Starbucks.  Let us bow our heads and give thanks.

Original Starbucks, Pike Place Market, Seattle

Lombard Street, San Francisco

And then there is San Francisco.  What is there to say about this place that imagination has not already captured?   There is its beauty, its pace, its openness.  It is unique in all the glorious connotations of the word.  It also has a terrific Greek restaurant, Kokkari, where I will be having dinner with friends from Mykonos and elsewhere when this post goes up Saturday morning at 12:05 AM, Eastern Standard Time.  Hopefully, I’ll be awake in time to make my 2 PM signing at M is For Mystery in San Mateo. 

After all, book tours should be joyful pilgrimages.  See you in LA.

Jeff ­— Saturday

A Revolution Continues in Egypt

As is true of many people around the world, I watch the unfolding Egyptian Revolution with hope, fear, trepidation, and hope again.  As an American who lives in a country born of revolution, I often take for granted the freedoms I possess.  I want the Egyptian people to have the same freedoms that I have, the same opportunities, and I grieve that these aspirations have been stifled by forces of fear and authoritarianism.  Last night Tom Friedman appeared on Charlie Rose's show, and he spoke of the missed chances that Egypt has had.  They could have been the Taiwan of the Middle East -- becoming a manufacturing sector on the Eastern Mediterranean.  Egypt isn't an oil producer, so it depends on the Suez Canal, the Nile, Tourism, and history.  It has the potential to become an economic power, but as Friedman noted, corruption, mismanagement, etc. have put the Egyptians at a disadvantage.  It's not Islam that holds Egypt and the Arab world back.  It is a fear of embracing the future that is holding them back.

So, we wait to see what comes next on what has been deemed "Departure Day."  The crowds continue to stream into the central square in Cairo.  The "pro-Mubarak" crowd has essentially dissipated, and the more joyous feeling that was seen earlier has returned.  Mubarak seems willing to wait it out, and he may well be able to do so.  Or, the Army may step in and create an interim government.  The protesters are not in a position to take power.  There is no one figure who can gather everyone together.  At this point even the Muslim Brotherhood is ceding the stage to others -- could be a ploy or it could be a realization that despite their organization prowess, they don't have a majority of the people on their side.  Yes, Iran wants to claim an Islamic style revolution similar to theirs, but there is no sign of this.  Indeed, what is interesting is that there is almost no anti-American or anti-Western sentiment being expressed.  No one is burning Uncle Sam in effigy.  Indeed, you don't even seem much anti-Israeli sentiment.  People want to live free, normal, lives.  They want their government to be responsive to their needs.  (Sound familiar?)

It is unfortunate that President Mubarak has gotten it in his mind that he is the sole buttress against chaos.  It is clear that he has been in power too long and that he believes his own myths.  The buttress against chaos isn't Mubarak, it's likely the Army.  The Army has been the one institution in Egyptian life that has continued to have the respect of the people.  My sense (and I have no proof) is that the Generals are looking at the situation and deciding whether to stay with Mubarak or not.  If they think their future is better off without Mubarak, Mubarak is gone. 

So, we wait, wondering what will happen next.  Hoping that this revolution ends better than most -- either in failure or radicalization.

Egypt's Dangerous Turn

One of the fears that everyone has had -- the worse case scenario -- is that Hosni Mubarak would try to hang on to power in Egypt.  Although he has promised not to run in an upcoming election and has seemingly abandoned the idea of passing on rule to his son, Gamal, he doesn't seem ready to actually move the country away from autocratic rule.

Reports are out now that "pro-Mubarak" protests have emerged, and that "supporters" have attacked the protesters in Cairo.  Although I'm sure that Mubarak has his supporters, especially those whose lives are intertwined with his regime, most analysts have noted that much of this "support" comes from paid thugs.  We all know that autocratic and dictatorial governments have ways of staging counter protests or shows of support for the government.  The Soviets were masters of it.  The Nazi's knew how to do it.  So, we should not be swayed by this sudden show of support for Mubarak.

It is time for Mubarak to go, and it's time for the US government to end its support for his regime, whose military is propped up by our largess.  I understand the realities of the situation.  The pragmatist/realist side of me wants to see stability.  But propping up a dying government will not preserve stability, it will only further undermine it, and as in Iran, allow more radical elements to co-opt it. 

Mubarak -- it's time to go.

Revolutionary Road Roundup

.
Dan Gardner, "The Psychology of Revolution," Ottawa Citizen, February 2, 2011

For those struggling to understand what's happening in Egypt, and what will happen, the Iranian revolution of 1978-'79 is an obvious reference point. It's also handy for lazy pundits. The Shah used violent repression? Then violent repression will fail in Egypt. The Iranian revolution ultimately produced an Islamist government? Then Egypt is going Islamist. Pick your parallel and place your bet. These facile equations are useless. Iran is not Egypt, the Shah is not Hosni Mubarak, and 1979 is not 2011. Every event is unique. History is not math.>>>

William Pfaff, "Uprisings: From Tunis to Cairo," New York Review of Books, February 24, 2011

Dictators do not usually die in bed. Successful retirement is always a problem for them, and not all solve it. It is a problem for everybody else when they leave. What’s to be done afterward? The popular uprising that overturned the dictatorial Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali regime in Tunisia in mid-January sent a thrill of hope through Arab populations.>>>

Benjamin Kunkel, "How Much Is Too Much?" London Review of Books, February 3, 2011

The deepest economic crisis in eighty years prompted a shallow revival of Marxism. During the panicky period between the failure of Lehman Brothers in September 2008 and the official end of the American recession in the summer of 2009, several mainstream journals, displaying a less than sincere mixture of broadmindedness and chagrin, hailed Marx as a neglected seer of capitalist crisis. The trendspotting Foreign Policy led the way, with a cover story on Marx for its Next Big Thing issue, enticing readers with a promise of star treatment: ‘Lights. Camera. Action. Das Kapital. Now.’>>>

David Byrd, "Life without Ben Ali," Voice of America, January 25, 2011 (hat tip)

Tunisia scholar Kenneth Perkins, professor of history at the University of South Carolina, says “it is true that Tunisia’s economy appeared to be prosperous, but while some people benefitted, many outside Tunis, in remote areas, did not see the results of Tunisia’s prosperity.” Author of A History of Modern Tunisia, Tunisia: Crossroads of the Islamic and European Worlds and Historical Dictionary of Tunisia, Perkins says one example is students who completed university degrees but often found it difficult to obtain employment commensurate with their skills unless they were willing to go to Europe.>>>

Robert D. Kaplan, "One Small Revolution," New York Times, January 22, 2011

The West stands captivated by Tunisia, where a month of peaceful protests by secular working- and middle-class Arabs has toppled a dictator, raising hopes that this North African country of 10 million will set off democracy movements throughout a region of calcified dictatorships. But before we envision a new Middle East remade in the manner of Europe 1989, it is worth cataloguing the pivotal ways in which Tunisia is unique.>>>

John Simpson, "Pressure mounts on Egypt's Mubarak," BBC, February 1, 2011

In every revolution, popular or otherwise, there comes a critical moment - a tipping point - at which the future is decided. . . . In China's Tiananmen Square in 1989, crowds a million strong gathered - not just students but sometimes judges, senior policemen, politicians as well - but Deng Xiaoping refused to go and eventually found a general who was prepared to shoot the demonstrators down.>>>

A Word of Hope for Egypt and the Arab World

For many years the Arab world has been largely controlled by military dictatorships of one sort or another.  They have gained support from the West, including the United States, by portraying themselves as the only feasible alternative to anti-western Islamist regimes, with a finger pointed at Iran.  Of course, Iran is a different fish, starting with the fact that it's not Arab.  

The revolution in Tunisia, which ran off its dictator, has set in motion a chain of events that is leading to pretty radical change of mindset in the Arab world.  Hosni Mubarak has ruled Egypt for thirty years, keeping an iron grip and suppressing any opposition, and we have largely turned a blind eye.  But the people have begun to speak.  They're no longer afraid, and the crowds that gather in the streets of Cairo and Alexandria are not chanting anti-American slogans as they did in Tehran a generation ago.  They simply want their freedom.  And hopefully they will get it.

Now, here's the big question -- will Egypt take an Islamist turn?  Well, for the most part this is not a religiously driven revolution.  This is about jobs and about a government that is responsive to the needs of the people.  It's about freedom of assembly and freedom of speech.  Will there be an Islamic component to what comes out of this revolution?  I would expect that the Muslim Brotherhood will play a role in what comes next.  But, I think we need to recognize that Egypt is predominantly Muslim.  But maybe the Muslim Brotherhood isn't the "Fundamentalist bogeyman" that they're portrayed as being.  Last night I watched an interview with a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, who had just escaped from prison.  He said that while Egypt is predominantly Muslim, the rights of minorities should and will be respected.  Why should we not take him at his word?  Why not give the Muslim Brotherhood a chance to be a partner in building a modern, open Egyptian state.  And if it works in Egypt, it can work elsewhere.

Yes, Israel is nervous, but a future built upon a partnership with a dictator does not bode well for lasting peace. 

This is my hope and prayer   

Egypt -- Will Freedom Ring?

I've been watching the events unfolding in Egypt with a great deal of concern and hope.  Egypt has been a stalwart US ally and "friend of Israel."  This reality has led American American governments to turn a blind eye from the autocratic nature of this regime.  We've stood by allowing Hosni Mubarak to rule without many questions because of the fear of Islamist takeover.  Unfortunately, our willingness to abide secular autocrats has only further alienated the Arab populace and given Islamists the high ground. 

After the people of Tunis rose up and pushed out the dictatorial regime there, the populace in Egypt has risen up.  Mubarak has, so far, refused to give up power, though he has fired his cabinet.  Of course, this fools no one.  The problem isn't with the cabinet, but with the one who appoints the cabinet.  Mubarak also is 82 and wanting to pass on power to his son -- but the people and perhaps even the Army isn't happy with this idea.  And so the nation has revolted.  The Army has been called out, but there is a sense that the military is weighing its options. 

So what will happen?  The US seems sidelined -- supporting democracy but fearful of chaos in Egypt.  Israel has placed its bets on Mubarak and so is hoping for autocratic rule to continue.  Other Arab countries are also looking at what is happening in Egypt with great concern, because like Egypt these are states ruled by autocratic rulers who allow little freedom to the people.  And, like Egypt the vast majority of their own populace is under the age of 30, and restive.  Islamists have, in the past, exploited this restiveness, for they alone have carried the moral authority to oppose these leaders.  What is interesting in Tunis and in Egypt is that by and large this is not an Islamist driven revolt.  But, if there is a crackdown, it is likely that it will be the Islamists who are able to exploit it.

My hope is that Mubarak steps down and democratic steps are taken.  Egypt is a fairly modern country, that has some diversity -- Predominantly Muslim, but with a significant Christian (Coptic) minority.  I don't know where this will go, but I remain hopeful that freedom will ring for this nation.  Let us not support autocracy out of fear of Islamist take over.  Such fears only feed resentments toward the west.  If we stand for freedom, let us also support it in real ways that honor the aspirations of the Arab people for a better life.  What was it that Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence -- the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 

Dogs through Time

Randall Stephens

No other animal has been as shaped by humankind as Canis lupus, the gray wolf. There are now 400 different official breeds. They range in size from the itty-bitty Chihuahua, which can sit comfortably in a teacup, to the Mastiff, weighing in at well over 200 lbs.

And just how much has human history been shaped and altered by dogs, and domestic animals in general? Ancient grave sites are littered with animal bones. The domestication of animals more than 10,000 years ago brought with it significant changes. Groups could settle and channel energies into new cultural pursuits. And since we first figured out how to keep cats around, use yeast to make intoxicants, and herd cattle, our lives have been caught up with the lives of animals.

A recent article in Der Spiegel, "The Pharoahs' Pups: Egyptian Bones Could Help Solve Canine Conundrum," looks into the roots of human-dog interaction. The earliest archeological evidence suggests that we've been linked closely to them for 14,000 years. Even more surprising: "Scholars believe that wolves first started to have peaceful interactions with Stone Age humans about 30,000 years ago."

"How did all of these various [dog] breeds develop?" asks the author in Der Spiegel.

Reliefs, grave paintings and statues indicate that the ancient Egyptians played a major role in this development. The first known depictions of dogs come from rock carvings along the Nile River dating back almost 5,000 years ago. Not long thereafter, the pharaohs were already hunting with slender greyhounds. A leashed dog with black-and-white spots that vaguely resembles a dalmation is painted on a sarcophagus from the 6th dynasty, or roughly 4,000 years back.

Around 1500 B.C., small, bowlegged mutts and lapdogs were already scurrying around the palaces of the pharaohs. Brawny hunting dogs were bred for the battlefield, and mastiffs imported from Assyria were crossed with the domestic breed. A bronze figure from the grave of King Tut strongly resembles a dachshund.>>>

For more on the amazing transformation of dogkind over the ages, and for a look at how humans have interacted with dogs, watch Nova's Dogs Decoded (2010) and The Science of Dogs (National Geographic, 2007) on Netflix. (Each is a "watch instantly" title.)

On a related note, check out this preview of Werner Herzog's new 3-D documentary, Caves of Forgotten Dreams, about a group of 32,000-year-old cave paintings of animals and humans in southern France.

Israel is Not the Problem

About a week or so ago we suddenly began hearing stories in the news about Israel bombing targets in Gaza, Israel attacking in the Gaza Strip, and so on. The picture that was painted was one of the State of Israel suddenly waking up one morning and deciding to attack, attack, attack for no particular reason. This perception was foisted on the American people by what has become a decidedly anti-Israeli American media. Think about it from any reasonable perspective. How would you feel if Mexico was lobbing bombs and missiles at targets in California or Nevada or Texas, destroying businesses and buildings, killing hundreds of Americans? Then one day the U.S. decided enough was enough, and fought back by attacking strongholds in Mexico where those who were attacking us were operating. Suddenly the world press is all over their broadcast news and in their newspapers with stories that the U.S. was attacking Mexico. How would that make you feel? Do you think that the Europeans and those in the Middle East, Asia, Africa who were reading these headlines and listening to the talking heads on the news broadcasts would get the full picture, or would they simply be left with the impression that the Americans were being bullies with the poor, little Mexicans? That is exactly what is happening with Israel, and it is a dangerous game. The 'Arab-Israeli conflict' as it has come to be known in modern times has no resolution. Despite what peaceniks and politicians will say, there can be no resolution, and the reason is very clear once you understand the two sides to the dispute. On one side you have Israel, which only wants to live in peace and would never do any aggressive harm to any of its neighbors. That is a fact and the utter truth. The only thing that Israel asks in return is not to be attacked, to be left alone and to allow itself to exist as a homeland for the Jewish people, which is the land of Israel's birthright since God Himself set aside the land for that purpose. Whatever your belief in God and His promises, the fact is that the modern State of Israel was formed thanks to an agreement brokered by that group that most liberals love - the United Nations. In 1947 the UN struck an agreement that partitioned what was known at that time as the land of Palestine into two sections, one Jewish and one Arab. A year later, the Jewish section declared itself independent as the State of Israel. The Arab nations surrounding Israel disagreed with the decision, and immediately attacked Israel. The Israelis prevailed in this fight, as well as in numerous other wars and battles over the ensuing three decades. Despite usually being outnumbered and surrounded, Israel has managed to defend itself successfully against the attacks of its Arab neighbors time after time. There remain disputes over sections of territory, notably what is known as the 'West Bank' and the 'Gaza Strip'. Israel sees these as strategically necessary to its defense, because the Arabs have frequently used these areas as launching pads for attacks. The Arabs see them as simply being Arab lands, with Israel having no legitimate claim. Israel has actually caused part of this problem in one way. They had control of these areas, but gave them up in previous 'peace' negotiations. They failed to remember their own lessons, that you cannot negotiate with groups that wish only to destroy you, and you certainly cannot give up land to them that only brings the territory they control even closer to your territory. Here is a basic fact that you need to understand. These Arab lands that surround Israel, from Iran to Egypt, from Saudi Arabia to Iraq, from Lebanon to Syria, do not recognize that Israel itself should even exist as a nation, and they ultimately want it erased from the map. That is a fact that you need to understand. It precludes any longterm peace agreement, because the fact is that no matter what deal these Muslim nations agree to from time to time, they have always returned ultimately to attacking Israel. There has been concern in recent years that Iran or some other radical Muslim group or nation will construct or obtain a nuclear weapon. Should that happen, there is no doubt in my mind that they will use that technology against Israel, it would just be a matter of time. You need to understand that despite the manner in which America's former 'mainstream media' presents the situation, Israel is not attacking anyone, they are defending themselves. Hamas is a radical Sunni Islamic political organization operating in the Palestinian region, and they are aggressively anti-Israeli. They had been lobbing bombs and missiles against Israel for some time before Israel finally responded last week. But you had not heard of those attacks in our American news, had you? That is the fact, and that is the attitude that much of the media here has towards Israel. This was no suddenly aggressive Israeli action, despite the suddenness of the situations appearance in our media. Israel is not the problem, the radical Islamists are the problem - again. Someday America may wake up to understand that we are truly in the middle of a World War, one that will continue against us and other western and non-Muslim nations, even if we pull out of the Middle East and cease fighting from our side. They will not stop, not against us, not against Israel, not against Europe. The radical Islamists are the problem, not Israel, and until we utterly destroy their ideology as we destroyed Nazi ideology, these problems will continue, this war will continue.

Islamism Series: Goodbye, America

"Imagine a world without the U.S. or Israel, it can happen." That is a publicly pronounced statement by Iranian President and radical islamic idealog Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that I read to my Racial Islam students every week. But is anyone taking him seriously? How could the United States, the acknowledged "most powerful nation in the history of the planet earth" cease to exist? Could a relatively small nation like Iran make something like this happen? I mean, the United States defeated the British against all odds, survived a devastating Civil War, and led the world in overcoming both the Fascism of Hitler's Nazi Germany and the Socialism of the Soviet Union, a pair of legitimate world military powers. Well, it might be pretty difficult for Iran, at least acting on it's own, to make America completely disappear as a nation. However, to think that we are invulnerable from a devastating attack from them would be to act with naivete, and that is something that we must not allow to happen. Because not only can Iran cause widespread devastation and seriously cripple, if not destroy, the United States as a superpower, but they are actively engaged in efforts to make that happen. Throughout history, even single mighty empire that has ever come along has fallen. Does Egypt still exist? Sure. Does Rome still exist? Of course. Is Britain still a strong peopled nation? Most definitely. But the fact of the matter is that not one of these is the major force in the world today, and at one time in history each one was the dominant power in the world. For the United States to fail to learn this lesson of history is for the United States to doom itself to repeat the process, and to one day either cease to exist or find itself a secondary nation. America faces many dangers in this process, including losing it's own unique national identity from within by continually sacrificing our traditions, laws, and language on the mantle of multi-culturalism. But the specific threat the Iranians can and are planning is nuclear. Ahmadinejad is doing everything in his power to obtain nuclear power. Of course it's for peaceful energy purposes if you ask him. This is the same guy that has said publicly that "Israel must be wiped off the map", "it will one day vanish", and "it is a tree that will be eliminated by one storm." What exactly do you think he is talking about here, and when he speaks of a world without the U.S.? The plan that Iran hopes to enact involves what is known as an 'EMP' attack on the United States. Iran would continue to develop their nuclear program to the point where they can construct a couple of nuclear bombs. They are already testing missile technology that would allow them to reach the continental United States from a sea-going vessel. Their plan would be to fire one of those missiles with an attached nuke at our country. Not at a city like New York, trying to blowup infrastructure. No, all that would do is make us angry and lead to their self-destruction. While some of these crazed islamists will give up their lives for the cause, the entire leadership is not suicidal. What they will do instead is launch this nuke so that it explodes in the atmosphere above our country, instantly creating what is known as an 'EMP' effect. In a report released earlier this year by a commission appointed by Congress after the 9/11 attacks to study just such a scenario, the following results were released: "If even a crude nuclear weapon were detonated anywhere between 40 kilometers to 400 kilometers above the earth, in a split-second it would generate an electro-magnetic pulse [EMP] that would cripple military and civilian communications, power, transportation, water, food, and other infrastructure." It wouldn't cause many immediate deaths or damage many buildings, but it would cause electric, gas, lighting, and water systems to fail. Committee spokesperson Dr. William Graham says that the result would be that the United States “would quickly revert to an early 19th century type of country, except that we would have 10 times as many people with ten times fewer resources. Most of the things we depend upon would be gone, and we would literally be depending on our own assets and those we could reach by walking to them.” Basically with the launch of one strategically placed weapon, the Iranians would eliminate the United States as a superpower. They would then turn their remaining arsenal on Israel, eliminating this much smaller nation from existence. Iran could do this openly as a nation, or they could farm the dirty work out to a terrorist organization and try to claim that they had no knowledge of the plot. Make no mistake about the intentions of the current Iranian regime, or the intentions of radical islamists the world over. They want the world under Islamic rule and law, and they will do whatever it takes to overcome those standing in the way of making it happen. The U.S. government and military, and all of us as citizens, need to be aware of and understand exactly what we are up against if we are going to preserve our great nation and it's strength in world affairs. If we refuse to meet this challenge, it will be goodbye America. At least to the America that we all know and love.