Posted on 05/03/2013 by Juan Cole
Rob Wile uses a graph to point out the obvious, the dramatic fall in the cost of solar power generation. In many countries– Italy, Spain, Germany, Portugal — and in parts of the US such as the Southwest, solar is at grid parity. That means it is as inexpensive to build a solar plant as a gas or coal one. The pace of technological innovation in the solar field has also accelerated, so that costs have started falling precipitously and efficiency is rapidly increasing. By 2015, solar panels should have fallen to 42 cents per kilowatt. Reneweconomy.com says that the best Chinese solar panels fell in cost by 50% between 2009 and 2012. That incredible achievement is what has driven so many solar companies bankrupt– if you have the older technology, your panels are suddenly expensive and you can’t compete. It is like no one wants a 4 year old computer. Conservatives shed no tears when better computers drive slower ones out of the market, but point to solar companies’ shake-out as somehow bad or unnatural. No wonder US solar installations jumped 76% in 2012. The reductions in cost over the next two years are expected to continue, at a slowing but still impressive 30% rate:
Construction has begun on the world’s largest solar plant. MidAmerican Solar and SunPower Corp. are building a 579 megawatt installation, the Antelope Valley Solar Project, in Kern and Los Angeles counties in California. That is half a gigawatt, just enormous. It will provide electricity to 400,000 homes in the state (roughly 2 million people?), and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 775,000 tons a year. The US emits 5 billion metric tons a year of C02, second only to China, and forms a big part of the world’s carbon problem all by itself. We just need 645 more of the Antelope Valley projects.
Important new research also shows that hybrid plants that have both solar panels and wind turbines dramatically increase efficiency and help with integration into the electrical grid. Earlier concerns that the turbines would cast shadows and so detract from the efficiency of the solar panels appear to have been overblown. Because in most places in the US there is more sun in the summer and more wind in the winter, a combined plant keeps the electricity feeding into the grid at a more constant rate all year round, which is more desirable than big spikes and fall-offs.
That Germany, then China, then the US are the world’s largest solar markets is no surprise. But that number 17 Japan will increase its solar installations by 120% in 2013 and so may be the second hottest solar market, just after China, this year, would mark a big change. Japan may well have 5 gigawatts of solar installed by the end of this year, even though the relatively new prime minister, Shinzo Abe, is no particular friend of the renewables. In my own view, if Japan made the right governmental and private investments, it could overtake China in the solar field and reverse its long post-bubble stagnation.
ABB has been commissioned a large solar electricity generating plant on the edge of the Kalahari Desert near Cape Town, South Africa. It will supply the electricity needs of around 40,000 persons and reduce annual emissions by 50,000 tons of carbon dioxide. South Africa emits 500 million tons of carbon dioxide annually, and is third in the world for per capita emissions. (Still, it only emits a 10th as much over-all as the US). But they just need a thousand more plants like the Kalahari one, and voila! South Africa is also imposing a carbon tax, which will hurry things along. (At the moment, South Africa is far too dependent on dirty coal plants, which not only fuel climate change but also spew deadly toxins such as mercury into the atmosphere, whence it goes into human beings.
Because of South African and Israeli demand in particular, demand for solar panels in the Middle East and Africa has risen over 600% during the past year. Saudi Arabia’s announced plans to save its petroleum for export by going solar at home will add a great deal to regional demand if it sticks to those plans. (In most countries, petroleum isn’t used much for electricity generation as opposed to transportation, but in oil states such as Saudi Arabia it often is used in power plants; but that cuts down on foreign exchange earnings.)
The two Indian states of Gujarat and Rajasthan are emerging as the solar giants in India, with each having now passed half a gigawatt in solar electricity generation capacity. The two account for some 88% of all of India’s solar power. But Rajasthan may soon outstrip Gujarat, given the state’s solar-friendly commitments, its ample amounts of scorching sunlight, and its vast deserts.
If the US reduced military spending by 50%, using that money to create jobs in alternate energy production, how many US jobs would be created vs those lost in military spending?
ReplyDeletefrom the article:
ReplyDelete…Reneweconomy.com says that the best Chinese solar panels fell in cost by 50% between 2009 and 2012. That incredible achievement is what has driven so many solar companies bankrupt– if you have the older technology, your panels are suddenly expensive and you can’t compete. It is like no one wants a 4 year old computer. Conservatives shed no tears when better computers drive slower ones out of the market, but point to solar companies’ shake-out as somehow bad or unnatural. No wonder US solar installations jumped 76% in 2012. The reductions in cost over the next two years are expected to continue, at a slowing but still impressive 30% rate…
If we created 4,000,000 alternate energy jobs, reducing military spending, stopping US involvement in Middle East wars, halting military equipment giveaways to the parasitic perma-class of US clients and reducing our social cost to the newly employed, how is that a bad thing?
ReplyDeleteWhat will become the world’s largest solar photovoltaic development is now in “major construction” mode in California’s Antelope Valley, about 60 miles north of Los Angeles.
ReplyDeleteThe solar manufacturer and developer SunPower and the utility company MidAmerican announced this new status late last week, coinciding with a big community event at the 3,230-acre site, where preliminary work began in January.
The development consists of Antelope Valley Solar Project 1, a 309-MW plant that will straddle the Kern-Los Angeles county line; and AVSP 2, a 270-MW plant that will be entirely in Kern County.
When completed by the end of 2015, if all goes according to plan, the Antelope Valley Solar Projects will add up to 579 MW, dwarfing any other PV outpost in the world.
Right now, the Agua Caliente project in Arizona – a First Solar development owned by NRG and MidAmerican – is at the top of the heap, at 250 megawatts. Other U.S. projects under way are aiming to match or beat Agua Caliente, but even the biggest, the 550-MW Topaz project in San Luis Obispo County, won’t best the Antelope Valley Solar Projects.
“The start of construction on the Antelope Valley Solar Projects underscores that solar is a reliable, cost-competitive energy source,” Howard Wenger, SunPower president, regions, said in a statement. “SunPower is proud to partner with MidAmerican Solar and Southern California Edison on this historic project, which is bringing critically needed jobs and economic opportunity to Californiatoday and will generate abundant clean, renewable power to the state over the long term.”
MidAmerican purchased Antelope Valley Solar from SunPower in January for between $2 billion and $2.5 billion, according to federal filings. The deal included a three-year contract for SunPower to build the projects, and to operate and maintain them under a multiyear agreement with MidAmerican.
MidAmerican, controlled by Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway conglomerate, has been gobbling up a lot of renewable energy in the past year or so. In October it bought two Southern California wind farm projects, part of the sprawling Alta Wind Energy Center, that total 300 MW in generating capacity. In February 2012, it completed the purchase of the under-construction 550-MW Topaz Solar Farm project from First Solar. In December 2011, it bought a 49 percent stake in the aforementioned Agua Caliente Solar Project. The company has also developed several wind farms and purchased others.
We get this from the coal lobby. Their critique is that too many jobs would be created by solar as the wattage output per worker is much less in the solar industry than of coal.Is that a bad thing? I wonder how many at this lobby actually ever went underground to mine coal?
ReplyDeleteA map recently released by the Solar Foundation highlights the industry’s claim that 119,000 Americans are now employed in the solar industry. Its authors exclaim, “The United States solar industry employs more workers than coal mining.” What the map doesn’t touch on is whether solar energy is the most economical energy source.
Solar advocates certainly think solar is economically beneficial. The average salary for a solar panel installer is “between $30,000 and $40,000 per year” according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The average salary for those in coal mining is $53,000 annually.
Yet when we look at the productivity of solar energy, it suggests that solar workers are going to have a hard time keeping pace with their counterparts in the coal industry.
In 2011, the United States produced 1,094,300,000 tons of coal. Coal’s energy content is measured by British thermal units (BTUs). At coal’s production rate of about 19,583,000 BTU per ton, it provided over 21 quadrillion BTUs of energy to the U.S. in 2011. In contrast, solar energy provided a mere 158 trillion BTUs.
In other words, solar power provided 0.07 percent of the energy that coal provided—not quite a full percentage point. That is in spite of the fact that the industry employs more people than the coal industry—which provided 87,500 jobs as of May 2012 according to the BLS.
Some simple math suggests that each worker in the solar industry produces about one half of one percent as much energy as the average coal miner. If workers were paid according to BTU output, solar workers would be making less than $300 annually proportionate to coal miners. Alternatively, it would require 21.4 million people in the solar industry to do the job that 87,500 coal miners are doing at present.
Considering the inefficiency of solar energy and the cost of creating jobs in the solar industry, it seems like a wasteful use of tax dollars to keep subsidizing solar to the tune of billions of dollars every year. It was recently estimated by Congressional Budget Office senior advisor Terry Dinan that $7.3 billion in energy tax subsidies would go towards renewable energy in 2013, with another $4.8 billion for energy efficiency
You have to be careful with your "cost" comparisons. All the Costs in a Solar farm are "Upfront" (labor, as well as capital.)
DeleteFor instance, the Antelope Valley project is consuming 600 some-odd workers, and a couple of Billioon of Capital, and producing 0 electricity.
In a couple of years there will be, maybe, five or six employees, producing 3 or 4 Gigawatt/hrs of electricity per day.
In 20 years, the farm will be paid off, and it will still be producing at approx. 96% of initial capacity, while all that "easy" coal at Powder River will be gone, and the miners will be looking at deep, underground mines for a replacement.
DeleteBTW, did you know that we, the taxpayers, only get $1.00/Ton for that coal from Powder River (which the coal companies turn around and sell to China for $100.00/Ton?)
DeleteThat should be "$0.42 per WATT of Capacity."
DeleteEl Paso contracted, the other day, for 100 Megawatt Capacity from a company in New Mexico for a little under $0.06 Kilowatt/Hr.
That $0.42/Watt is even more amazing when you consider that we were talking $10.00/Watt just a few years ago.
DeleteSolyndra had a kind of neat, elegant panel, but they thought they would be competing against $6.00/Watt panels. By the time they got close to production their competition was selling panels for less than a quarter that much, and prices were in freefall.
Here's the deal with solar: No living human being can tell you what the price of coal, or nat gas is going to be 20 yrs from now (not to mention 30, 40, or 50 years from now,) but even the most obtuse potato farmer could tell you the cost of future sunshine.
DeleteA day or so ago, some idiot anon was promoting an experimental nuclear fusion reactor, being built in Europe, at a starting cost of $10 billion.
DeleteOnly governments were listed as investord, not a private company in sight.
This we were told was the apogee of humanity.
What clap trash that idea is.
Humanity has access to a fusion reactor, for free.
Of course centralized government, all around the whirled, does not like that idea.
There is not much political leverage or control when power generation is on your roof.
.
ReplyDeleteTo your point, Deuce,
ANY alternate use for the waste associated with the military budget is a positive. The horror stories associated with military procurement are rampant and have been around for years. It wouldn't suprise me if a third of the current budget couldn't be dropped with no loss in readiness just through efficiencies gained through an honest procurement process, elimination of no-bid contracts, doing away with cronyism, sweet-heart deals, bribery, Congressional set-asides, cost-plus arrangements, etc.
Military equipment is necessary up to a certain point for defense. Anything beyond that is a waste of money. There is no upside to it. It has no multiplier effect. Once a shell is fired, it's gone. You cannot produce anything productive from it like you can from a piece of manufacturing equipment or energy generating equipment. If you can switch the waste to productive uses it can only be a positive.
That being said, the best alternate use for the money will eventually be determined by a cost-benefit analysis. When it comes to energy generation, it is too big an issue for individual instances of success or of failure (Solyndra) to make a difference. The long-term cost-benefit analysis will be what determines what alternatives we end up with.
We can sit around and 'figger' and 'estimate' and 'project' the costs of various energy alternatives all day long and it don't mean shit. The market will ultimately decide.
.
No. When, for example, you're going up against a $4 Trillion Petroleum Industry, the "free market" is going to blow wind. Only a (large) government has "any" chance of standing up to that pressure.
DeleteThe best example is staring us right in the face. Germany "Created" the modern Solar market. They stepped in with large subsidies, and Created a Huge Demand. It was when companies started competing to fill that demand that solar costs started to plunge.
DeleteThe U.S. is doing something similar with Ethanol. Ethanol would have never gotten off the schneid w/o the Renewable Fuels Standard. The oil companies certainly weren't going to do it.
Delete.
DeleteBullshit.
.
Decent Jobs number - but, it was essentially switching employees to part-time status, plus a little part-time hiring.
ReplyDeleteQ's point would be valid, on a level field.
ReplyDeleteIf the Federal government withdrew its military subsidy support for the oil industry ...
Well, we'd soon have less than 12 carrier battle groups if the oil tankers were tasked with paying for maintaining sea lane security.
Why does the US not get paid for providing sea lane security for Saudi oil shipments to Japan?
“The global oil market is very vulnerable to potential supply disruptions, given that reserves are heavily concentrated among a handful of major producers and consuming centers are often far from producing basins.”
—Lehman Brothers Report, 18 January 2008
The global oil chokepoints are a chain of 10 strategic centers that collectively process 64 percent of the world’s oil.
Table 1 shows the top 10 global oil chokepoints. The disruption of flow from any of these systems could potentially interrupt or even eliminate a substantial volume of the worldwide supply of oil. All are located in littoral regions, and all are accessible from the sea.
http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/chokepoint
Delete.
DeleteMore bullshit.
.
.
DeleteRat, you spend constant blog space indicating all the areas the government shouldn't get involved. The constant theme, let 'private industry' do it.
Government should stay out of it, well, until they shouldn't.
.
Compelling argument, there, Q'ster.
DeleteThe military is all about the oil.
DeleteThe vulnerability of the global oil chokepoints through the Indian Ocean and on to the South China Sea represents a critical vulnerability for the United States, its allies, and its competitors. The threats are diverse, ranging from criminality and piracy to terrorism and state-versus-state competition for resources. Because of the very real vulnerability to freedom of navigation along this route, the United States needs specialized amphibious forces capable of confronting the diverse threats by retaining, regaining, and/or denying the use of the SLOC through the use of seabased OMFTS capabilities. An examination of the Strait of Malacca clearly demonstrates the vulnerability and the need for naval forces to counter it. The complex political and physical geography of the strait makes it extremely unstable and vulnerable. The closure or threat of closure of this strait by the action of nonstate actors or through deliberate state action threatens nearly 20 percent of the world’s total oil flow. Naval expeditionary forces capable of striking both land and sea are absolutely vital to the defense of critical infrastructure trade routes like the Strait of Malacca. In order to maintain control of the seas, the U.S. Marines working in tandem with the Navy must continue theater security cooperation and other presence missions in South Asia. In addition, to safeguard our national interest we must continue to exercise and develop amphibious operations capabilities necessary to regain or deny access to the Strait of Malacca and other global oil chokepoints.
Actually, that IS the challenge of democracy - knowing when to get the government involved.
DeleteThe balance, we only have 25% of the global economy, why carry a higher share of security costs than that?
DeleteWhy not charge our allies and clients the balance?
Why not charge those that benefit from the service a fee for that service?
DeleteWhy should the US subsidize Japanese, Indian and Chinese oil security costs?
Or should US budget restraints require US to withdraw the service?
Shouldn't the health care of the people in the US have a higher Federal spending priority than securing Wahhabi oil shipments to Charlie Chi-com?
Instead we borrow money from both the Wahhabi and Charlie, so we can "provide security" for them on the high seas.
Or does the 26% share of Toyota held by US interests cover 'em?
DeleteWe could go Petroleum Independent for about $500 Billion - approx. 1/3 the cost of the Iraq War.
ReplyDeleteThink about it.
.
DeleteIn Rufus-World.
.
The difference being, of course, that the $500 Billion would be spent in the U.S., not Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Russia.
DeleteRufus-world has been reality-world for some time now.
DeleteQ-world has remained right where it was - "Bullshit-land."
And, "More Bullshit-land."
DeleteHere's the problem we're running into; the cost of producing the marginal barrel of oil is now just about equal to the price where the marginal U.S. consumer starts running into trouble.
DeleteAs the wells get deeper, and farther offshore (Gulf of Mexico, for ex.) and more complex (Bakken) they will get more expensive.
As they get more expensive, more and more of our marginal consumers are "priced out."
This is going to get uglier, and uglier. It's Not going to be fun for quite awhile.
Natural gas, rufus, they're gonna power the whirled on pinto beans.
DeleteIf the Banksters are in charge they will. :)
DeleteThe JPMorgan case arose, according to the document, after the bank’s 2008 takeover of Bear Stearns gave the bank the rights to sell electricity from power plants in California and Michigan. It was a losing business that relied on “inefficient” and outdated technology, or as JPMorgan called it, “an unprofitable asset.”
Yet under “pressure to generate large profits,” the agency’s investigators said, traders in Houston devised a workaround. Adopting eight different “schemes” between September 2010 and June 2011, the traders offered the energy at prices “calculated to falsely appear attractive” to state energy authorities. The effort prompted authorities in California and Michigan to dole out about $83 million in “excessive” payments to JPMorgan, the investigators said. The behavior had “harmful effects” on the markets, according to the document.
Looks like they stole $83 million.
DeleteWonder if anyone will go to jail?
Looks like it ought to have been illegal.
Whether it was, or not, time will tell.
But, they don't need "regulatin'."
DeleteThe mean ol' guvmint.
DeleteWell, Rand Paul would engage a Predator drone against a miscreant that stole $500.
DeleteWhat should we do with JPMorgan?
Is the scope and scale of the thievery pertinent to an armed response?
.
DeleteRufus-world has been reality-world for some time now.
No it has been alternate reality world. I won't bother with your minion, rat, but will restrict my comments to you.
Were you to restrict your arguments to the need for energy independance or even the need for alternative energy because of declining petroleum stocks, few would argue with you other than about the timing of the change over. However, it's the other comments that make you look like the Al Gore of the alternate energy industry.
I pointed out on numerous occasions why just throwing a huge amount of money at alternativce energy wasn't going to get us switched to alternative energy any time soon, things ranging from technology, to lead times, to NIMBA, to environmental concerns, and beyond. I won't go into them all again. Likewise, the constant drumbeat we get from you on how cheap these technologies all are. You belive anything you read as long as it is in Clean Technica.
To me that is being gullible. If everyone of these technologies were so damn cheap, there would be no need for all the subsidies and mandates.
One example, lately the papers are full of optimistic forecasts that the entire East Coast will soon be powered by offshore wind power. People are jumping up and down. Hey, it wind power. It, like solar, is 'free'.
What you don't hear about is that they have been trying to get that offshore wind power going for 20 years and that it wouldn't be be coming on line now without the subsidies and tax breaks.
The wind power breaks were put in in 1992. We have been paying for them ever since. One of the biggest sops to the wind industry is the production tax credit. It ended at the end of 2012. However, in January, it was not only reinstituted it was made much easier to qualitfy for. And what was the result of the cutoff and then renewal?
“Deals are getting signed; people are ramping up their production facilities again,” said Peter C. Duprey, chief executive of Broadwind. “The whole industry went through either a shutdown or idling at the end of last year and are now quickly trying to gear back up again.”
The whole industry shuts down or idles because of the lack of government sponsorship after two decades of development and subsidies?
As I said, bullshit.
.
.
DeleteAs they get more expensive, more and more of our marginal consumers are "priced out."
More silliness. Energy (all types of energy) will be priced at what the market will bear. If oil gets too expensive, cheaper alternate energy will replace it. However, the long-term pricing of that alternate energy will be governed by the same rules. While there may be short-term 'deals' as companies try to buy into the market or short-term facilities issues and cost/benefit analysis dictate lower prices in one area over another, long-term all of these industries will be marketed based on profit maximization.
Free wind? Free solar?
I kind of doubt it.
.
It must be sweet to have such a simplistic view of the world. I envy you.
Delete.
Delete:)
Good one.
.
Q tells US that we're a global empire ...
ReplyDeleteOil is the tail waging the dog.
In 1904, British Admiral Sir John Fisher proclaimed that “five strategic keys lock up the world.” Those keys were Singapore, Capetown, Alexandria, Gibraltar and Dover, and “the world,” to Admiral Fisher, was the British Empire. Those keys were all straits, passages or chokepoints through which British commercial and military ships had to sail to keep the Empire thriving.
The successor state to Great Britain’s global hegemony, the United States, does not have a literal empire nor, therefore, the same constraints. However, the global system which US power supports (and on which its prosperity depends), is heavily dependent on maritime trade and is thus also vulnerable to chokepoints. As much as ninety percent of world trade travels by sea at some point, and between one half and two thirds of the world oil trade is maritime. As energy is the single most important commodity in the modern global system, the importance of these chokepoints is magnified. The US Energy Information Agency monitors the main oil transit chokepoints here. The EIA identifies seven chokepoints. In order of the amount of oil that flows through them, they are:
Strait of Hormuz
Straits of Malacca
Suez Canal
Danish Straits
Turkish Straits (Bosphorus and Dardenelles)
Bab al Mandab
Panama Canal
It is the US Navy that provides the bulk of security for these checkpoints. The curious thing is that, when you go through the data at the EIA and Hofstra sites, you find that most of the oil transiting the Straits of Hormuz (59%) and the Malacca (96%) are headed to Asia, not the US. Indeed, the US gets most of its imported oil from relatively secure sources – 54.8% from North & South America, 14.9% from Africa, 11% from Europe (including Russia) and 3.1% from other regions. Only 16.2% comes from the Persian Gulf. Conversely, China now imports more than half of its petroleum (and that percentage is growing); about half of its imports come from the Persian Gulf and thus transits Hormuz, and up to 3/4 of Chinese imports transit Malacca.
.
DeleteAbove, Rufus speaks of simplistic.
If you think that the dispersion of U.S. forces across the globe and the subsequent projection of U.S. power is for the sole reason of protecting our oil supplies you are the poster boy for simplistic.
.
China now imports more than half of its petroleum (and that percentage is growing); about half of its imports come from the Persian Gulf and thus transits Hormuz, and up to 3/4 of Chinese imports transit Malacca.
ReplyDeleteNow I would submit that the need to "secure the sea lanes" is not "defensive", but a way to keep our foot on Charlie Chi-coms' neck.
Shouldn't US security policy issues be openly debated, before another dime is borrowed from Charlie to implement it?
Little wonder the Chinese signal they'll go to war if overt military aggression is aimed at Iran.
Deletehttp://energeopolitics.com/2012/09/13/the-keys-that-lock-up-the-energy-world-geopolitics-strategy-oil/
DeleteJust as Britain and her mighty fleets controlled the five keys a century ago, today the seven (eight, nine or ten) keys that lock up the energy world are owned by the United States and her naval forces. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
DeleteOil is not the "Only" reason, but exemplifies the reasons.
ReplyDeleteMostly the reason is economic domination, followed by political subservience of our client States.
Always a factor when forcing nations into relationships with US and our allies that they would otherwise refuse. If governments are not adequately subservient, there is always the regime change option.
I assume you believe, Q, that the violence in the Middle East garners so much US attention because of some other factor, than oil?
While violence elsewhere in the world garners not a peep from the DC establishment.
When was the last time we heard of the atrocities the government has committed against the Karen in Burma?
Why no calls to "Do Something", there?
The economics, cost/benefits to the governing elites don't pencil out, so ...
... there is no need to "Do Something".
Power projection is based upon the power to run an industrial society.
DeleteChina is a primary US economic partner, dependent upon Middle East oil.
As is Japan and to a lesser extent, India
That's why those "Red Lines" are just a desert mirage, rhetoric lost in the windblown sand.
The economics of the global economy out weigh sectarian or even ideological paranoia.
Energy is ... Power.
Who controls it, vital to deciding whether we have a centralized or civilized society.
The reason ethanol is DIFFERENT from the other "alternative energy is that it is not electrical. It is liquid and can burn in any of the 300 million vehicles in the US fleet.
DeleteIt is a truly defensive security asset that could help make the US independent of non-American sources of energy. The entirety of the Americas, North and South could become energy independent.
Benefits to US residents, security and economic, would expand exponentially.
Whether the Federals fund ethanol research and development, or not, matters none to much.
The Brazilians are funding it, regardless.
Let them own technologies that will be utilized in the US.
DeleteI assume you believe, Q, that the violence in the Middle East garners so much US attention because of some other factor, than oil?
Of course. We are there for 'humanitarian' reasons. Ask the prez.
Just as you and Deuce think it's because Israel requires us to be.
.
I do not think that Israel is the reason the US is in the Middle East.
DeleteThe civil war there is a symptom of the collapse of Europeon colonial empire, not a cause of US interest in Arabia. The US had formalized its relationship with the Saudis long before the creation of Israel as a City-State in Palestine.
The Israeli do have an effective and possibly illegal lobbying force in DC.
DeleteWe do know that Israeli-Americans have attempted to influence US politics, possibly with foreign funds.
The fella that funded Newt, has that newspaper in Israel, a casino in Vegas and is an agent of Charlie Chi-com in Macao, real big spender in what could be referred to as Radical Republicanism.
While Lester Crown buys the "Left" in Chi-town and the Oval Office.
Go to BLS.gov
ReplyDeleteand you will see that the number of part-time workers increased by 441,000. We lost "full-time" workers.
This economy is getting weaker.
China, India, and the oil-exporting countries are, steadily, increasing their oil consumption. The U.S. and Europe are steadily decreasing consumption.
DeleteWe're losing power. China is gaining power.
One thing that puzzles me about your theory that the success of the economy, growth, is directly linked to the price of oil is that an economy such as China's has maintained growth as oil prices rose yet the US economy didn't.
DeleteIt's easy if you think about it, Ash. It boils down to "utililty of the marginal barrel."
DeleteWho gets the most "utility?" The guy that puts a gallon of gas into his jitney to take 6 guys to work, or the guy that uses that gallon to drive his 1982 Chevy pickem-up truck to the fishin' rodeo?
I do find it funny, and I've commented on the irony before of how Rat, the professed Libertarian that he is who thinks that all endeavors (such as space exploration) should be decided by private market players yet, when dealing with ethanol, goes all top down government dictated solution.
ReplyDeleteSure oil plays a large part in American world wide force protection but it isn't the only reason by a long shot. Simply keeping open shipping lanes for trade of all kind is another. America is very dependant upon world trade and has a strong vested interest in keeping the machinery of globalization oiled.
Like his previous, but now changed view, that the US should have invaded and occupied Syria while it had occupied Iraq, the blow back from unintended consequences of government directed energy consumption would give him similar pause and would most likely initiate a similar change of mind.
Heck, if these guys are so keen on these energy alternatives they should invest their hard earned capital and try to make a buck out of it in the private market. Solar factories are only good at producing energy when the sun is shining (storage of electricity is still a 'problem') and ethanol has some pretty large energy inputs that add to its cost, but heck, let the market decide.
errrr "force projection"...
DeleteHard for the "market to decide" if both products aren't "in the market."
DeleteEthanol has sold for anywhere from $0.60 to $1.00/gal less than gasoline all year, and yet, the oil companies have fought E15, tooth and nail, all year long.
You are contradicting yourself when you say it sells (in the market) but it isn't in the market.
DeleteSure the oil companies will fight against their competition and they dominate the market. There is also a role for governments to regulate markets but that is a far cry from rats urging of a wholesale move to ethanol for political reasons.
I don't recall reading about any "Wholesale Moves."
DeleteRat, and I, both, have made a case for government "support."
We have, very easily, replaced ten percent of our gasoline with ethanol. What do you think the chances of that happening would have been w/o the government mandate?
There are multiple reasons for Federal support of ethanol.
DeleteOne of those, which is an overriding concern, is National Security.
Which is what makes ethanol the exception to the "Rule, ash.
Besides, advocating for "No Subsidies" is an ideological position. Not a practical one.
The Federals will not stop subsidizing oil, or hydro-electric, or coal, or any of the other "regular" energy sources. To include nuclear.
Solar energy is booming, because of government intervention, Chinese government intervention.
Ethanol is making similar strides in technological advances. The US can participate through tax code manipulations or guaranteeing markets or conclude it is best to cede the technological advancements to the Brazilians.
I'll benefit, regardless.
Just as I and all of US are benefiting from Chinese Socialism and Slave Labor.
DeleteThough some benefit a lot more than others.
Some garner millions of dollars, others get frozen tapia.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThe country charts its course, quot.
DeleteThrough its systems and processes.
The checks and balances.
Always comes out in the end.
If the Federals decide to support ethanol research, good for me.
If they decide not to support the research, that's good for me, too.
The Brazilians will gain the technology. That's good for humanity, and by extension, me.
The Brazilians will license the technology, and cellulosic ethanol will come to the US, which is good for me.
Whether US or Brazilian investors profit, meaningless to me.
Especially if it is meaningless to the Federals, now.
So, whatever happens, it'll be good for me.
Life, amigo del diablo, has always been good for me.
DeleteI have always benefited, from life.
It has been very, very, good, to me.
To bad the quot business has gone to squat.
No, quot, I was addressing you.
DeleteFor truly you are a ...
... Friend of the Devil.
English as a second language, is it still a bit tough for you?
Seems Spanglish is way out of your comfort zone.
Wow! A through N!
Delete... and you said I only had one note.
Caught yourself in another lie.
Your patterned response is getting even better.
Ill get another battery for the laser pointer.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteCould write a sentence in Spanish, if I thought about it.
DeleteAbout as good as your English.
But there'd be errors at "higher" levels of communication. Similar to the ones you seem to suffer from, in English.
Words really have meanings, what you refer to as twisting, is really just clarification for those that cannot comprehend pretty simple writing, the first time.
Like your use of the word "SLANDER.
DeleteYou cannot be slandered on blogger.
You could be libeled.
Same but ... Different
Any educated English speaker would know that.
Could slip by an ESL
If not an ESL, then not well educated.
Delete"O"riginal didn't err in the ways you do, now.
Still can't get the budget to fix your sign on.
ReplyDeleteThe Committee, they won't give you the password?
I mean, really, quot, the "O"riginal would be ashamed of your publicly exposed lack of self respect, in his name.
DeleteDo so with composure, it'll make your case, better than ranting and hysteria.
DeleteProject Liberty
ReplyDeleteTake the Tour
Being built without government money.
Not only supplies its own energy, but about half the energy for the corn ethanol refinery next door.
.
Delete:)
.
Google Rules!
ReplyDeleteGoogle changes Palestinian location from 'Territories' to 'Palestine'
Fox News - 49 minutes ago
JERUSALEM - Google is de facto recognizing a state of Palestine. Google spokesman Nathan Tyler said on Friday that Google had decided to change the name of the Palestinian Territories to just "Palestine" in its products.
I guess if someone disagreed with Google, they could always boycott their products.
DeleteLike ...
... Blogger.
hint, hint
;-)
Google sucks.
DeleteTherefore you will love 'em.
Google provides this forum.
DeleteYou could leave it if you are offended by Google., think it "sucks".
Will you sacrifice the pleasure you find in writing on this Google platform, due to your political opinion of your publisher, or are you a Hedonist that cares only for his pleasures?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteHeh, Barky, speaking in Mexico, blames all the violence there on USA guns.
ReplyDeleteAre those the guns he shipped there himself?????
You got to admit, the guy is shameless and has brass balls.
Barky is the biggest gun runner of them all.
No, he is not, bob.
DeleteHis agents merely watched, as other miscrents ran those guns.
I have not heard of a single instance where a Federal crossed the border, carrying a weapon to trade.
Perhaps I've just missed it.
Post anything that would correct me, if I am wrong.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Deletequot, you are really losin' it.
DeleteFirst you spoke of Hitler in the most affirmative way, telling us your own father was wrong, about Hitler, life or who knows what else ...
and now ...
You've gone totally looney tunes.
His agents merely watched, as other miscrents ran those guns.
DeleteHis miscreants merely watched, as other miscreants ran those guns.
I don't know what a miscrent is so I have changed your spelling.
In the ethical systems I am aware of, outsourcing the evil deed does not absolve one of the ethical responsibility for the deed.
It is like, we don't torture, we just send the victim to another country to be tortured.
Or, it is like hiring a professional killer to bump off one's wife, or business partner.
I know this is a hard abstract concept for some to grasp.
bob could have found a source that never made "The News".
DeleteDoubtful, hardly possible, but we are talking about the US President.
As Mr Nixon said, whatever a President does is legal, unless impeached and convicted, at least they think what they do, is legal.
We'll see who is correct, if bob has a reference.
Not exactly, bob.
DeletePoor prosecution is not the same are perpetrating the crime.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteSo, did any Federal agent run guns to Mexico?
DeleteIt is not a difficult question.
Or did they just collect evidence for future prosecutions, rather than immediately arrest the gun runner?
quot says the Federals take years to build a case, before they make an arrest or even have an interview with the suspect, maybe he is correct.
The FBI did go talk to the Patriot Day bomber, before the event.
Seems a pretty common practice, to speak to the suspected suspect.
One the BATF did not utilize in Fast & Furious
Maybe the Federals at BATF are so inept that that is all there is to the story.
Federal incompetence. SOP
Not nearly the same as Iran-Contra. Not in the design of the operation, the scope or scale of the arms that were run. Reagan beats 'em all.
No, quot, you do not get to attempt to put words in other peoples mouths, then claim they are not your own.
DeleteNo way, Jose!
YOU and I both know you had an Epiphany, and wanted to share it with the world.
You spoke affirmatively of Herr Hitler, said he was right, YOUR father was wrong.
Tht was what YOU wrote, what YOU wanted to share with everyone.
Not what Deuce had ever said.
The Hitler quot, is yours and yours alone.
Hey bob didnt ya know rat NEVER says any thing wrong..
DeleteNEVER has Rat ever said anything wrong.
Why, I learned just the other day that Assad was not a Moslem.
I had never known that before, but now I do. Because of Rat.
The working theory now seems to be that Assad is a closet Mennonite.
He is an Alawi, boobie.
DeleteThat is a religion, like Judaism is a religion.
It is a people, like Judaism is a people,
It is not a nation.
Google:
DeletePipes Alawi
Real experts, referenced over hundreds of years, through to today.
Definitely not Muslims.
The Alawites, also known as Alawis, Nusayris and Ansaris (ʿAlawīyyah (Arabic: علوية), Nuṣayrī (Arabic: نصيريون), and al-Anṣāriyyah) are a prominent mystical[8] religious group centred in Syria who follow a branch of the Twelver school of Shia Islam.[9][10][11] They were long persecuted for their beliefs by the various rulers of Syria, until Hafez al-Assad took power there in 1970.
DeleteToday they represent 12% of the Syrian population and for the past 50 years the political system has been dominated by an elite led by the Alawite Assad family. During the Syrian civil war, this rule has come under significant pressure.
Contents
1 Etymology
2 History
2.1 Origins
2.2 Under the Ottoman Empire
2.3 French Mandate period
2.3.1 Alawite State
2.4 After Syrian independence
3 Beliefs
3.1 Heterodox
3.2 Orthodox
4 Population
4.1 Syria
4.2 Lebanon
4.3 Turkey
5 References
6 External links
Etymology
The Alawites take their name from Ali ibn Abi Talib, cousin of Muḥammad,[12] who was considered the first Shi'a Imam and the fourth "Rightly Guided Caliph" of Sunni Islam.
Until fairly recently, Alawites were referred to as "Nusairis", after Abu Shu'ayb Muhammad ibn Nusayr (d. ca 270 h, 863 AD) who is reported to have attended the circles of the last three Imams of the prophet Muhammad's line. This name is considered heretical, and they refer to themselves as Alawites.[page needed][13] They have allegedly "generally preferred" to be called Alawites, because of the association of the name with Ali ibn Abi Talib, rather than commemorating Abu Shu'ayb Muhammad Ibn Nusayr. In September 1920 French occupational forces instituted the policy of referring to them by the term Alaouites.
In official sources they are often referred to as Ansaris, as this is how they referred to themselves, according to the Reverend Samuel Lyde, who lived among Alawites in the mid-19th century. Other sources state that "Ansari", as referring to Alawites, is simply a Western mis-transliteration of "Nosairi".[page needed][14][15]
Alawites are similar to the Alevi religious sect in Turkey, and the terms share similar etymologies, and are often confused by outsiders.[16][17]
History
Origins
An Alawite falconer photographed by Frank Hurley in Baniyas, Syria, during World War II
The mythological origin of the Alawites is disputed. The Alawites themselves trace their origins to the followers of the eleventh Imām, Hassan al-'Askarī (d. 873), and his pupil ibn Nuṣayr (d. 868).[18] The sect seems to have been organised by a follower of Muḥammad ibn Nuṣayr known as al-Khasibi, who died in Aleppo about 969. In 1032 Al-Khaṣībī's grandson and pupil al-Tabarani moved to Latakia, which was then controlled by the Byzantine Empire. Al-Tabarani became the perfector of the Alawite faith through his numerous writings. He and his pupils converted the rural population of the Syrian Coastal Mountain Range to the Alawite faith.[19]
In the 19th century and early 20th century, some Western scholars believed Alawites to be descended from ancient Middle Eastern peoples such as Canaanites and Hittites.[page needed][20][21]
Obvious Mennonites in Moslem drag.
.
DeleteHis agents merely watched, as other miscrents ran those guns.
I have not heard of a single instance where a Federal crossed the border, carrying a weapon to trade.
Once again, rat, your mental gyrations are truly vapid and bizarre whether intentional so for arguments sake or because you've licked one too many toads. Under either interpretation, they are insipid.
One assumes, that as a U.S. law enforcement agency, the ATF's prime responsibility is to fight crimes not abet them. As a matter of fact, I'm sure if you went to their web site and looked at the job descriptions and objectives that it would say something to that effect.
With Fast and Furious the guns used in killing Brian Terry were traced back to a straw buyer 'allowed' to smuggle guns into Mexico 'with the blessing of the ATF and Eric Holder's Department of Justice.' I repeat, with the blessing of the ATF and DOJ.
So that you understand the difference between what this administration did and what Bush's guy did,
Dubbed "Operation Wide Receiver," the Bush-era operation was run out of Tucson between 2006 and 2007, ending before Bush left office and before Fast and Furious began under Obama in 2009. The differences between it and Fast and Furious are vast, starting with the fact that Wide Receiver produced no dead bodies.
Operation Wide Receiver used the common law enforcement tactic of "controlled delivery" in which the illegal sales of weapons were allowed to take place, the movements of the weapons were closely monitored and the end purchasers were then apprehended. It involved gun-tracing, not gun-walking.
Under the "controlled delivery" of Wide Receiver, agents didn't just write down the serial numbers and let the guns disappear as in Fast and Furious. They closely and physically followed the guns from American dealers to straw purchasers to Mexican buyers.
Most importantly, Wide Receiver was run in close cooperation with Mexican authorities, who were kept in the dark on Fast and Furious.
In contrast ATF agents involved in Fast and Furious have testified that they were ordered not to track the weapons and in cases where interdiction was possible they were ordered to stand down and actually watch the weapons walk.
ATF Special Agent John Dodson has testified how in one instance guns were sold to known illegal buyers who took them to a stash house. Against orders from his superiors, Dodson kept the stash house under surveillance and when a vehicle showed up to transfer the weapons to their ultimate destination, he called for an interdiction team to move in, seize the weapons and arrest the traffickers. His superiors refused, and the guns disappeared without surveillance...
Your argument, one you often use, that there was no crime committed because there was no prosecution is specious on its face, mere legalistic bullshit. The fact that it can be difficult to get a conviction or even a charge when the police are asked to police themselves doesn't negate the misdeeds.
Even if they never end up in prison, Holder and his crew have been convicted in the court of public opinion (by all but the disinterested sheeple) of crimes perhaps the least of which is felony stupidity.
.
Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/062212-615871-fast-and-furious-different-than-wide-receiver.htm#ixzz2SG7chmUB
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook
Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/062212-615871-fast-and-furious-different-than-wide-receiver.htm#ixzz2SG7chmUB
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook
Q, all I am saying is that Obama's gun running was not gun running, but stupidity, fer sur.
DeleteI am not saying that Holder and Company, to include the President are not feckless, or harmless in this Fast & Furious fiasco.
But the Federals were not implementing the greatest gun running program in all of history.
Far from it.
Legalistic, yeah.
That is the Standard for impeachment.
As for the Court of Public Opinion, it did not effect the election.
Grandest judgement the public provides.
If Holder violated the law, the House should act. I have no problem with that.
I do with boobies hyperbole.
Wiki quality has fallen off, of late.
DeleteYou quote anonymous sources.
I don't.
T. E. Lawrence described them as "those disciples of a cult of fertility, sheer pagan, antiforeign, distrustful of Islam, drawn at moments to Christianity by common persecution." The Jesuit scholar Henri Lammens unequivocally concluded from his research that "the Nusayris were Christians" ...
...
Benjamin Disraeli described the 'Alawis in a conversation in the novel Tancred:
"Are they Moslemin?"
"It is very easy to say what they are not, and that is about the extent of any knowledge we have of them; they are not Moslemin, they are not Christian, they are not Druzes, and they are not Jews, and certainly they are not Guebres [Zoroastrians]."
...
Taqiya permitted 'Alawis to blow with the wind. When France ruled, they portrayed themselves as lost Christians. When Pan-Arabism was in favor, they became fervent Arabs. Over 10,000 'Alawis living in Damascus pretended to be Sunnis in the years before Asad came to power, only revealing their true identities when this became politically useful. During Asad's presidency, concerted efforts were made to portray the 'Alawis as Twelver Shi'is.
Relations with Sunnis
Mainstream Muslims, Sunni and Shi'i alike, traditionally disregarded 'Alawi efforts at dissimulation; they viewed 'Alawis as beyond the pale of Islam - as non-Muslims. Hamza ibn 'Ali, who saw the religion's appeal lying in its perversity, articulated this view: "The first thing that promotes the wicked Nusayri is the fact that all things normally prohibited to humans - murder, stealing, lying, calumny, fornication, pederasty - is permitted to he or she who accepts ['Alawi doctrines]."
Abu Hamid al-Ghazali (1058-1111), the Thomas Aquinas of Islam, wrote that the 'Alawis "apostatize in matters of blood, money, marriage, and butchering, so it is a duty to kill them."
Ahmad ibn Taymiya (1268-1328), the still highly influential Sunni writer of Syrian origins, wrote in a fatwa (religious decision) that "the Nusayris are more infidel than Jews or Christians, even more infidel than many polytheists. They have done greater harm to the community of Muhammad than have the warring infidels such as the Franks, the Turks, and others. To ignorant Muslims they pretend to be Shi'is, though in reality they do not believe in God or His prophet or His book." Ibn Taymiya warned of the mischief their enmity can do: "Whenever possible, they spill the blood of Muslims. They are always the worst enemies of the Muslims." In conclusion, he argued that "war and punishment in accordance with Islamic law against them are among the greatest of pious deeds and the most important obligations" for a Muslim. From the fourteenth century on, Sunnis used the term "Nusayri" to mean pariah. ...
Delete...
There was one exception to this consensus that 'Alawis are not Muslims. Toward the end of the nineteenth century, as Christian missionaries began taking an interest in the 'Alawis, Ottoman authorities tried to bring them into Islam. The French already had special ties to their fellow Catholics, the Maronites, and the authorities in Istanbul feared a similar bond being created with the 'Alawis. So they built mosques in the 'Alawi areas, built schools to teach Islam, pressured 'Alawi religious leaders to adopt Sunni practices, and generally tried to make the 'Alawis act like proper Muslims. This isolated case of Sunnis reaching out to 'Alawism came to an end after a few decades and had very little impact on 'Alawi behavior.
The Islamic religion reserves a special hostility for 'Alawis. Like other post-Islamic sects (such as the Baha'is and Ahmadis), they are seen to contradict the key Islamic tenet that God's last revelation went to Muhammad, and this Muslims find utterly unacceptable. Islamic law acknowledges the legitimacy of Judaism and Christianity because those religions preceded Islam; accordingly, Jews and Christians may maintain their faiths. But 'Alawis are denied this privilege. Indeed, the precepts of Islam call for apostates like the 'Alawis to be sold into slavery or executed.
http://www.danielpipes.org/191/the-alawi-capture-of-power-in-syria
Maybe history is a tad more deep than they taught in Idaho public schools, back n the day.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteKentucky Derby tomorrow!
ReplyDeleteCivil War rages on.
ReplyDeleteSome say it is in Israel. others say it is in Palestine.
Same ground, regardless.
Wiki does not mention civil war by forcing two governments into one country.
It is a rare occurrence, but happening in Israel/Palestine, today.
Limitations on the scope and scale of the reporting and accurate references, that happens with anonymous encyclopedias.
Blood flows freely.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteI leave the Israeli to hide under the bed.
DeleteIt certainly does not scare me when they do.
I expect them to be there, if it thunders, or even clouds up a little.
They can stay under there until they feel safe.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteSo much for that Arab League peace effort, the Civil War in Israel/Palestine continues.
DeleteThe entertainment never stops.
DeleteThe war is 8,000 miles away?
DeleteWhat war is that?
The Civil War in Israel/Palestine.
There is no geographic limitations to the War on Terror.
Terrorists targeting the US can run, but they cannot hide.
We leave that to the Israeli.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteProven wrong?
DeleteNah, you proved me right about the Israel/Palestine Civil War.
I explain tomorrow or even later tonight.
Whenever I get around to it.
That is the One State Option. The civil war started when Israel annexed Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza, in what 1967 and Golan in 1981.
Unless the Israeli pull back to 1967 borders the Civil War rages on.
It is problematic whether or not such a pullback would end the Civil War, or if the Israeli government could stand the internal pressure of returning jurisdiction of the occupied lands to the Palestinians, or even lift the blockade of the commercial port and the airport in Gaza.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Delete
DeleteI explain tomorrow or even later tonight.
Whenever I get around to it.
We will all be awaiting with great expectations.
Here, for instance, is a picture of Assad the Mennonite at a prayer meeting in Damascus, Kansas -
ReplyDeleteAn image grab taken from state-run Syrian TV shows Syria's embattled President Bashar al-Assad (left) sitting next to Syrian Grand Mufti Ahmed Hassun during a prayer to mark the birth of Islam's Prophet Mohammed on January 24, 2013 in Damascus. Assad made a rare public appearance, as his troops blasted rebel districts in the flashpoint city of Homs
http://my.news.yahoo.com/photos/syrias-president-bashar-al-assad-left-prayer-mark-photo-153723950.html
It was at an ecumenical meeting celebrating diversity of opinion on matters religious.
I would never have realized this without the input of Rat.
Daniel Pipes, boobie, Daniel Pipes.
DeleteT. E. Lawrence described them as "those disciples of a cult of fertility, sheer pagan, antiforeign, distrustful of Islam, drawn at moments to Christianity by common persecution." The Jesuit scholar Henri Lammens unequivocally concluded from his research that "the Nusayris were Christians" ...
...
Benjamin Disraeli described the 'Alawis in a conversation in the novel Tancred:
"Are they Moslemin?"
"It is very easy to say what they are not, and that is about the extent of any knowledge we have of them; they are not Moslemin, they are not Christian, they are not Druzes, and they are not Jews, and certainly they are not Guebres [Zoroastrians]."
...
Taqiya permitted 'Alawis to blow with the wind. When France ruled, they portrayed themselves as lost Christians. When Pan-Arabism was in favor, they became fervent Arabs. Over 10,000 'Alawis living in Damascus pretended to be Sunnis in the years before Asad came to power, only revealing their true identities when this became politically useful. During Asad's presidency, concerted efforts were made to portray the 'Alawis as Twelver Shi'is.
Relations with Sunnis
Mainstream Muslims, Sunni and Shi'i alike, traditionally disregarded 'Alawi efforts at dissimulation; they viewed 'Alawis as beyond the pale of Islam - as non-Muslims. Hamza ibn 'Ali, who saw the religion's appeal lying in its perversity, articulated this view: "The first thing that promotes the wicked Nusayri is the fact that all things normally prohibited to humans - murder, stealing, lying, calumny, fornication, pederasty - is permitted to he or she who accepts ['Alawi doctrines]."
Abu Hamid al-Ghazali (1058-1111), the Thomas Aquinas of Islam, wrote that the 'Alawis "apostatize in matters of blood, money, marriage, and butchering, so it is a duty to kill them."
Trying to find the simplest of answers for you, so you might understand -
DeleteAre Alawis True Muslims?
By Bernie on 21 Aug 2011
read-speaker
Ashora
Ashora
In response to my article Muslims have A Norway Massacre Every Day, a reader from Melbourne, Australia left this comment:
the Hama massacre was perpetrated by an army following the orders of a secular government. Assad was an Alawite, a tiny offshoot of Shia Islam that the Sunni majority does not recognise as Muslim (mainly because they drink alcohol, the women don't cover their hair, and some also celebrate Easter and Christmas). SO that can hardly be put down to an Islamic massacre. In fact it was a massacre of Islamists: Hama was the site of a revolt led the Muslim Brotherhood which tried to overthrow the Assad regime and install an Islamic state in its stead.
This is a variation of "Do not blame Muslims - it's the Culture" excuse.
Three points are brought up to dispute my argument that the Hama Massacre was particularly brutal because it was perpetrated by Muslims.
The soldiers were following the orders of a secular government.
And anyway it was ordered by an Alawite - not a true Muslim.
And anyway Muslims were killing other Muslims.
As to point 1: The majority of soldiers in the Syrian army are Sunni.
As to point 2 : There are so many sects in Islam that one can excuse any atrocity by blaming it on 'not really true' Muslims.
As to point 3: So what if Muslims were on the receiving end, the giving end were all Muslims.
But let's consider point 2 in more detail. To answer the question, "Are Alawis True Muslims?" we need to ask, "Are Jehovah's Witnesses True Christians?" Let's consider some of their positions:
They do not believe in the Trinity.
They do not believe Jesus was crucified.
They refuse to have blood transfusions.
They do not believe in an immortal soul.
They do not believe in hellfire.
They do not observe Christmas, Easter, or other holidays.
Despite all the above, JWs are considered Christians because they believe in Jesus. In the same manner Alawites are Muslims because they believe in Mohammed.
Excusing an atrocity by blaming it on "not really true Muslims" is really shabby and low and is excuse number 11 in my article If You Knew Islam Like I Know Islam.
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Alawite
DeleteBest Answer - Chosen by Asker
Deletesalamun alaikum sister,
In real terms, the differences between alawis and shias are not very much. Both are followers of the shia twelver (ja'fari) school of thought, which is viewed even by sunni scholars as one of the five schools of thought in Islam - the other four being the hanafi, maliki, hanbali, shafi'i schools of thought. So, Alawis consider themselves not much different from the twelver shias. If i was to be very picky, it can be said that a difference between the two is that alawis are much more secretive in their theology and they publish very little of it, whilst the twelver shias are very open with their theology and it is open for everyone to see. however that can be put down to the fact that the alawis are a very small minority whose total population is about 3million - mainly in Syria and Lebanon.
However, there are many rumours about alawis worshipping Imam Ali (as) or believing that angel Gabriel was supposed to reveal the revelation to him rather than the Prophet Mohammed (saw) etc. but these are all false rumours and they are completely refuted by alawis who are very clear about their belief in one God, Allah (swt), and in Mohammed (saw) being His final Messenger. These lies about alawis probably originate from the same people who create lies about shia beliefs in general.
i hope that helps.
take care sis...
http://www.30-days.net/muslims/muslims-in/mid-near-east/syria-alawites/
DeleteToday’s Syrian president, Bashar al-Asad, is Alawite, and has only formally converted to Sunni Islam. In the eyes of Sunni Muslims, who form the majority of the Syrian population, the Alawites are perceived as atheistically orientated.
I know you will join me in praying that the Alawite Moslems will all return to Christ, Rat, or as an alternative, become Jews.
Let us pray now together -
Prayer for Syria:
* Pray that there will be an awakening among the Alawites through the Spirit of God, so that they will search for the truth.
* Pray for the Alawites to turn to Christ through the testimony of Christians and through evangelistic literature and radio and satellite TV programmes.
* Pray for there to be a new freedom for the proclamation of the gospel, especially by foreigners, thus ending 45 years of prohibition.
Bob's Addendum to the prayer for the Alawites -
Let them become either Christians or Jews , O Creator of the Universe.
Or maybe even farmers, so they have no time for disputes.
Amen
Question:
DeleteWhy would Assad build mosques if he were not some kind of Moslem?
From what I just read recently, he seems to have been gently urging his fellows to move somewhat to a more traditional understanding of Islam.
Are Mormons Christians?
The Mormons say yes, many traditional Christians say no.
But we do know they are not Moslems.
In like manner we do know the Alawites are not Mormons, but a type of Moslem.
I know this is hard for General Bunk to understand. Like how if you have hired a hit on your wife, or business partner, you are really to blame, just as if you had done it yourself.
Or how you cannot escape responsibility for running guns, simply because someone else ran them for you.
There is a case locally where a fellow ordered a hit on his wife. He is in jail. He had also agreed to kill the hitman's wife. A mutual agreement between them. Neither can escape responsibility. The hired hitman is on the lam, at this writing. Luckily the hitman's wife was attacked before the fellow was arrested.
She will be the sole free survivor of this local fiasco. The others - one dead, and two heading for jail, or the execution chamber.
I am going to go now, and research the horses in the Kentucky Derby.
ReplyDeleteIt is a much more interesting pursuit than reading Rat.
But first -
ReplyDeleteMay 3, 2013
Do we know where Syria's chemical weapons are?
Rick Moran
With Obama's "red line" apparently being crossed, the one of the assumptions was that we would go after Syria's chemical weapons and either destroy them or secure them so that they couldn't be used again.
Only one problem with that scenario: we apparently don't know where they are.
Daily Beast:
As the White House mulls whether Syria has crossed President Obama's red line and used chemical weapons, the U.S. military and intelligence community are quietly acknowledging that the United States does not know where many of those weapons are located.
The judgment comes from top U.S. military commanders and is supported by recent intelligence community assessments, according to three U.S. officials who work closely on Syrian intelligence matters. At the heart of the concern is that the Syrian military has transferred more and more of its stock of sarin and mustard gas from storage sites to trucks where they are being moved around the country. While U.S. intelligence agencies first saw reports that Syria was moving the weapons last year, the process has accelerated since December, according to these officials. Also worrisome, said two of the officials, is intelligence from late last year that says the Syrian Scientific Research Center--an entity responsible for Syria's chemical-weapons stockpile--has begun to train irregular militias loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in how to use the chemical munitions.
The assessment that Syria is moving large amounts of its chemical weapons around the country on trucks means that if Obama wanted to send in U.S. soldiers to secure Syria's stockpiles, his top generals and intelligence analysts doubt such a mission would have much success, according to the three officials. "We've lost track of lots of this stuff," one U.S. official told The Daily Beast. "We just don't know where a lot of it is."
The large-scale movement of weapons, if it is in fact occurring, would violate one of Obama's earliest declared red lines concerning Syria. Last August he said, "We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is, we start seeing a whole bunch of weapons moving around or being utilized."
The president placed himself in a box with his "red line" talk and now finds it difficult to live up to that pledge. What other kind of intervention could take place besides securing chemical weapons? Would we really come in on the side of the jihadists to overthrow Assad?
Talk of supplying the Free Syrian Army with lethal aid means giving arms to people who would turn around and use them against those we support to run Syria post-Assad. But Obama may be forced into that action - plus perhaps establishing a no fly zone in Syria - because going after the chemical weapons just isn't possible and to keep our deterrent credible with countries like Iran and North Korea, we are going to have to take some kind of action.
It's no wonder some are saying that Syria is Obama's "gravest foreign policy blunder."
Out.
yuck, yuck, yuck
ReplyDeleteRomney gets labeled 'religious fanatic' on CNN -
Video: CNN panel names Romney a religious fanatic for promoting … children
posted at 4:11 pm on May 3, 2013 by Ed Morrissey
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/03/video-cnn-panel-names-romney-a-religious-fanatic-for-promoting-children/
For quoting Psalms — by the way, an Old Testament book common to all Christians and Jews — the panel laughs Romney out of the room as a “religious fanatic”
It is because of crap like this that I haven't watched CNN in years.
Well, bob, here is the reason the conflict in Israel/Palestine is a civil war.
ReplyDeleteThe story starts with Mr Truman's recognition of Israel, in Palestine.
This Government has been informed that a Jewish state has been proclaimed in Palestine, and has been requested by the provisional Government thereof.
The United States recognizes the provisional government as the de facto authority of the new State of Israel.
Harry Truman
So, the country where Israel is founded, Palestine.
The single country split by civil war, was Palestine
www.businessdictionary.com/definition/civil-war.html
Definition of civil war: Armed conflict between a government and another group from within the same country
Per Harry S Truman, as far as the US is concerned, Israel is a region within Palestine.
The start of the civil war, 14MAY1948, the day the Israeli split Palestine.
Refugees still not permitted to return, because the "Civil War" has never ended.
Those folks, in the refugee camps either are Palestinians or Israeli. The ground is the same, and thanks to quot posting the Hamas handbook, we know they are unswayed in their desire to reunite Palestine under a single government.
The Civil War rages on.
http://www.archives.gov/global-pages/larger-image.html?i=/education/lessons/us-israel/images/recognition-press-release-l.jpg&c=/education/lessons/us-israel/images/recognition-press-release.caption.html
Delete... and RECOGNITION has been requested ...
mea culpa
The US recognized the insurgents, almost immediately, in Palestine.
DeleteTerrorism gained a big win, when the US did.
But that does not change the fact that the country was split and the civil war begun.
And that it rages still, today.
The Arab assaults and aggressions against Israel in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1968, and 1973 had nothing to do with Palestinians. The Palestinian terror campaign would itself be easy to suppress today and eradicate if the Middle East conflict were really a Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Israel would simply obliterate the terrorists and expel their supporters to Syria and Lebanon. The Middle East war continues because it is really an Arab-Israeli war, not an Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is also in large part a war between barbarism and civilization. In many ways an Islamic religious jihad against the Jews.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.masada2000.org/historical.html
Most people would understand the term 'civil war' as a conflict between two, or more, groups of people who actually shared a Nation. Israel today has about 20% arab moslem population I believe. The luckiest arabs in the Middle East. They don't seem to be the ones causing the trouble. Rather it is the 'Palestinian Arabs' urged on by the surronding Moslem countries.
Because no other peoples had ever established a national homeland in "Palestine" since the Jews had done it 2,000 years before, the British "looked favorably" upon the creation of a Jewish National Homeland throughout ALL of Palestine. The Jews had already begun mass immigration into Palestine in the 1880's in an effort to rid the land of swamps and malaria and prepare for the rebirth of Israel. This Jewish effort to revitalize the land attracted an equally large immigration of Arabs from neighboring areas who were drawn by employment opportunities and healthier living conditions. There was never any attempt to "rid" the area of what few indigenous Arabs there were or those Arab masses that immigrated into this area along with the Jews! .......
.....On May 14, 1948 the "Palestinian Jews" finally declared their own State of Israel and became "Israelis." On the next day, seven neighboring Arab armies... Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Yemen... invaded Israel.
ISRAEL SCREWS UP TOO!
Israel was responsible for bringing about some of its own problems. The Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza Strip were packed and ready to leave following their 1967 defeat. Suddenly the victorious one-eyed IDF General Moshe Dayan persuaded them to stay. This singular act stunned no one more than the Arab enemy himself who could not believe such an incredible manifestation of Jewish madness! After all, the Arabs knew what THEY would have done to the Jews if they had won! Dayan's plan was to educate them, offer them modern medical treatment, provide them with employment both in the West Bank, Gaza AND inside Israel Proper itself ... living amongst each other in hopes of building bridges to the Arab world. Israel is now paying dearly for this typically naive "Leftist" gesture. That "bridge" led to two Intifadas and world-wide Arab-Palestinian terrorism. From a frightened and defeated enemy, these "Palestinian" Arabs under Israel's jurisdiction turned into a confident, hateful and dangerous enemy now on their way toward forming a terrorist state determined to destroy Israel!
......
Fox News is saying Israeli planes have bombed something in Syria, but just what seems an unknown at this time.
An obvious attempt to drag us into another Mid-East War, eh, Rat?
DeleteLike they dragged us into Afghanistan, and Iraq, and Libya.
The Jews were really behind all those actions by ourselves. Even though we didn't realize it at the time, we were being suckered.
I have finished my Kentucky Derby research.
ReplyDeleteThe winner is going to be:
Kevin Krigger aboard Goldencents.
My special pick for Rufus:
DeleteFrac Daddy
Green Room
The best horse’s name at the Kentucky Derby?
posted at 3:37 pm on May 3, 2013 by Erika Johnsen
I think I’ve found the horse for which I’ll be rooting this weekend:
Carter Stewart has been full of surprises over the years. …
Then last weekend, Frac Daddy, a 3-year-old thoroughbred he co-owns with Senior graduate Ken Schlenker, came out of nowhere to qualify for the fabled Kentucky Derby. …
That’s exactly what they did recently in making a last-minute decision to enter the Kentucky-bred Frac Daddy in the $1 million Arkansas Derby with hopes of winding up at Churchill Downs.
The gray colt finished second to Overanalyze in front of a crowd of 66,158 in the Grade 1 stakes race at Oaklawn Park, earning enough points to secure a spot in the final field for the “Run for the Roses” May 4 in Louisville, Ky. …
“Ken and I kind of consider this horse, named Frac Daddy with all the fracking going on, as a tribute to the oilfield workers of America,” Stewart said.
I'm not sure why but this web site is loading incredibly slow for me. Is anyone else having this issue or is it a issue on my end? I'll check back later on and see if the problem still exists.
ReplyDeleteHere is my blog post ... fat loss factor
You got any fat loss factor for fat brains?
ReplyDelete.....
Ever hear of the Mother's Day Massacre?
http://kermitgosnellcrimes.wikispaces.com/Mother%E2%80%99s+Day+Massacre
Is this stupid, or what? -
ReplyDelete'Appalling irresponsibility': Senior scientists attack Chinese researchers for creating new strains of influenza virus in veterinary laboratory
Experts warn of danger that the new viral strains created by mixing bird-flu virus with human influenza could escape from the laboratory to cause a global pandemic killing millions of people.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/appalling-irresponsibility-senior-scientists-attack-chinese-researchers-for-creating-new-strains-of-influenza-virus-in-veterinary-laboratory-8601658.html
Hi there, There's no doubt that your site could possibly be having browser compatibility issues. When I take a look at your web site in Safari, it looks fine but when opening in I.E., it's got some overlapping issues.
ReplyDeleteI merely wanted to give you a quick heads up! Other than that, great blog!
My blog; bmi index chart