But I have begun to question why none of this reached the tradmed in any shape or form. I can possibly understand, but not excuse, the fact that a lot of warnings about sub-Prime that were all over the blogs in the year or two before the wheels came off, but the situation with oil was much more clear cut and there was plenty of evidence that something was badly amiss.
Maybe it's another aspect of the fact that journalists don't talk to experts. A classic example is when the NYT had an article about some muslims declaring Obama an apostate. No experts in islamic law were consulted, heck no muslims were consulted, but the journalist wrote the story based on some right-wing truthiness. When genuine islamic scholars were outraged by the idocy and ignorance of the piece, they were informed that senior editors had consulted the qu'ran and thought it was okay.
Christians flicked through the qu'ran and felt that was sufficient fact-checking on an article hingeing on interpretations of islamic practice developed over hundreds of years. It's the self-referential arroagance. Journos have abrogated to themselves the ability to be instant experts on anything, just quickly read up google and wikipedia and they can write what they like.
No wonder they write such drivel about science and economics. And energy. Not only do they not know what they're talking about, they believe there is nothing to be gained by talking to those who do.
So, now, suddenly peak oil is news and everybody's an expert. Where were they a year ago ? andmore to the point, what story are they missing catching up with yesterday ? keep to the Fen Causeway
I wish I could find the citation, but it was a fortnight ago. keep to the Fen Causeway
Jihad Watch: Barack Obama and Islamic apostasy (February 12, 2007)
It is certainly true that Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, ordered that apostates from Islam be put to death. Although this is frequently denied, his statement "Whoever changes his religion, kill him" (من بدل دينه فاقتلوه) appears in numerous authoritative Islamic sources, including Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi, Abu Dawud, Ibn Majah, An-Nasai, the Muwatta of Imam Malik, Tayalisi, Ibn Hanbal, Ibn Hibban, the Sunan al-Kubraa, Bayhaqi, Abu Ya'laa, Humaidi, Abd al-Razzaq, and Ibn Abi Shaybah. Western Muslims who claim that this is not Islamic law are often hailed as moderates and reformers. This, however, ignores the fundamental difference between denial and reform. If the Protestant Reformers had simply begun indignantly denying that the Catholic Church taught Transubstantiation and the sacramental priesthood, instead of arguing that such doctrines should be discarded, they would not have been reformers, but obfuscators. A genuine Islamic reformer today would acknowledge that the death penalty for apostasy is mainstream Islamic teaching, affirmed by all the madhahib, or schools of jurisprudence, and then explain why this should be set aside. But that is not the same thing as claiming that Islam doesn't teach this in the first place. So is Obama under a death sentence? Probably not. As far as I know Obama has never explained when he left Islam and became a Christian. This is a crucial point, for according to Islamic law an apostate male is not to be put to death if he has not reached puberty (cf. 'Umdat al-Salik o8.2; Hidayah vol. II p. 246). Some, however, hold that he should be imprisoned until he is of age and then "invited" to accept Islam, but officially the death penalty for youthful apostates is ruled out.
Western Muslims who claim that this is not Islamic law are often hailed as moderates and reformers. This, however, ignores the fundamental difference between denial and reform. If the Protestant Reformers had simply begun indignantly denying that the Catholic Church taught Transubstantiation and the sacramental priesthood, instead of arguing that such doctrines should be discarded, they would not have been reformers, but obfuscators. A genuine Islamic reformer today would acknowledge that the death penalty for apostasy is mainstream Islamic teaching, affirmed by all the madhahib, or schools of jurisprudence, and then explain why this should be set aside. But that is not the same thing as claiming that Islam doesn't teach this in the first place.
So is Obama under a death sentence? Probably not. As far as I know Obama has never explained when he left Islam and became a Christian. This is a crucial point, for according to Islamic law an apostate male is not to be put to death if he has not reached puberty (cf. 'Umdat al-Salik o8.2; Hidayah vol. II p. 246). Some, however, hold that he should be imprisoned until he is of age and then "invited" to accept Islam, but officially the death penalty for youthful apostates is ruled out.
This is a tradition in the USA. I remember seeing almost everything that eventually came out in the Watergate investigations raised in a series of reports from the Washington Post in the summer before the '72 elections. Every one of them sank like a stone, but with no ripples, as the water was moving quickly. And I thought I had calibrated my bullshit detector during the Vietnam War in the 60s! As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
In the era of "he said, she said" reporting that avoids actually reporting unpleasent things like facts unless there is someone in a position of authority to state them ... and repeats quasi-facts so long as there is someone in a position of authority to state them ... its a public fight between people in positions of power.
So long as they were prepared to ignore the story, the press complied, and so long as the story was not covered, people in a position of authority could get away with ignoring the story. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
So long as they were prepared to ignore the story, the press complied, and so long as the story was not covered, people in a position of authority could get away with ignoring the story.
What I found astounding was that the "they" apparently included outspoken critics of Nixon in a U.S. House of Representatives that was very substantially Democratic in composition. I was a highly interested observer of U.S. politics at the time, but certainly not a student of the period. Perhaps "they" correctly assessed the situation and concluded that it would be bad tactically to begin investigations during an election when Republican support would be vital for a sucessful outcome.
I can only hope that the results will be similar this time with regards to justifications for the Iraq War, etc. But I hadn't intended to hijack the thread. As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
After all, "He said / she said" reporting does not mean giving fair coverage to what both sides say ... its about ducking responsibility for reporting with the pretence to fair coverage to what "both sides" say.
But Peak Oil is even easier than the Watergate ... where the Democratic House took a watching brief until the story finally caught fire. "Both sides" include one side entirely in the pocket of the fossil fuel lobby and a second side with large numbers in the pockets of the fossil fuel lobby, and with the most immediate response to Peak Oil being to invest in the harvesting of renewable energy resources, which will then compete with fossil fuels in the marketplace, there is every reason to just pretend in public its not happening ...
... even for those oil companies whose strategies clearly include a substantial recognition that it may well be. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
