Flannel Shirt

The source of Islamic terrorism

Here. An excellent article.

Social selection plays the same role in the social sciences which the natural selection plays in the biological sciences: it selects the traits, norms and values which are most beneficial to the host culture. Seen from this angle, social diversity is a desirable quality for social progress since when diverse customs and value-systems compete with each other, they take the best and reject the worst from each. 

A decentralized and unorganized religion, like Sufism, engenders diverse strains of beliefs and thoughts which compete with one another in gaining social acceptance. A heavily centralized and tightly organized religion, on the other hand, depends more on authority and dogma, than value and utility. A centralized religion is also more ossified and less adaptive. 

When we look at religious extremism and the consequent militancy and terrorism, in Pakistan in particular and the Islamic world in general, in the natural evolution of religion, some deleterious mutation must have occurred somewhere, which has infected the whole of Islamic world. 

Most Pakistani political scientists blame the Pakistani military establishment for a deliberate promotion of religious extremism to create a jihadi narrative which suits the institutional interests and strategic objectives of the Pakistani military. There is no denying this obvious fact but it is only one factor in a multifactorial equation. The phenomenon of religious extremism is not limited to Pakistan, the whole of Islamic world from Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria to Indonesia, Malaysia and even the Muslim minorities of Thailand, China and Philippines bear witness to it. 

The real culprit for the rise of religious extremism and terrorism in the Islamic world is Saudi Arabia. The Aal-e-Saud (descendants of Saud) have no hereditary claim to the Throne of Mecca since they are not the descendants of the prophet, nor even from the Quresh. They were the most primitive marauding nomadic tribesmen of Najd who defeated the Sharifs of Mecca violently after the collapse of the Ottomans in World War I. Their title to the throne of Saudi Arabia is de facto, not de jure, since neither do they have a hereditary claim nor do they hold elections to ascertain the will of the Saudi people. Thus they are the illegitimate rulers of Saudi Arabia and they feel insecure because of that; which explains their heavy-handed tactics is dealing with any kind of dissent, opposition or movement for reform. 

Religious extremism all over the Islamic world is directly linked to the Wahhabi-Salafi madrassas which are sponsored by the Saudi and Gulf petrodollars. These madrassas attract children from the most poorest backgrounds in Islamic countries because they offer the kind of incentives and facilities which government-sponsored public schools cannot provide: free boarding and lodging, no tuition fee at all, and free books and stationery. 

Aside from madrassas, another factor that promotes Wahhabi-Salafi ideology in the Islamic world is the ritual of the Hajj and Umrah (pilgrimage to Mecca and Medina). Every year millions of Muslims travel from all over the Islamic world to perform the ritual and wash their sins. When they return to their native countries, after spending a month or two in Saudi Arabia, along with clean hearts and souls, dates and zamzam, they also bring along the tales of Saudi hospitality and their true puritanical version of Islam, which some, especially rural-tribal folk, find attractive. 

Authority plays an important role in any thought system; the educated people accept the authority of the specialists in their respective fields; the lay people accept the authority of the theologians and clerics in the interpretation of religion and scriptures. Aside from authority, certain other factors also play a part in individual psyches: loyalty, purity or the concept of sacred, and originality and authenticity as in a concept of being close to an authentic ideal. 

Just like modern naturalists, who prefer organic food and natural habits and lifestyle because of their belief in the goodness of nature or their disillusionment from manufactured fuss, religious folks prefer a true version of Islam which is closer to the putative authentic Islam as practiced in Mecca and Medina: the Gold Standard of Petro-Islam. 

Yet another factor contributing to the rise of Salafism throughout the Islamic world is immigration. Millions of Muslim men, women and families from the Third World Islamic countries live and work in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, Kuwait and Oman. Most are on temporary work permits. 

Just like the pilgrims, when they come back to their native villages and towns, they bring the alluring perception of having an Oxbridge degree and an attractive English accent. Not literally but figuratively. Spending time in Arab countries entitles one to pass authoritative judgments on religious matters; and having a cursory understanding of the language of Quran makes you an equivalent of a Qazi (judge) among the illiterate village people. And they just reproduce the customs and attitudes of the Arabs as an authentic version of Islam to their compatriots. 

Shi'ite Muslims have their Imams and Marjahs (religious authorities) but it is generally believed that Sunni Islam discourages the authority of the clergy. In this sense, Sunni Islam is closer to Protestantism, theoretically, because it promotes an individual and personal interpretation of scriptures and religion. It might be true about the Hanafies and other educated schools of thought in Islam; but on a popular level, the House of Saud plays the same role in Islam that the Pope plays in Catholicism. By virtue of their physical possession of the holy places of Islam – Mecca and Medina – they are the ex officio Caliphs of Islam. The title of the Saudi King, Khadim-ul-Haramain-al-Shareefain (Servant of the House of God), makes him a vice-regent of God on Earth. And the title of the Caliph of Islam is not limited to a nation-state, he wields enormous influence and clout throughout the Commonwealth of Islam: the Muslim Ummah. 

Now, when we hear slogan like “No democracy, just Islam” on the streets of Third World Islamic countries, one wonders what kind of an imbecile would forgo his right to choose his ruler through a democratic process? It is partly due to the fact that the masses often conflate democracy with liberalism; without realizing that democracy is only a political process of choosing one’s representatives and legislators through an election process, while liberalism is a cultural mindset which may or may not be suitable in a native Third World society, depending on its existing level of social progress in an evolutionary perspective - which prefers a bottom-up, gradual and incremental changes over a top-down, sudden and radical approach. 

One feels dumbfounded, however, when even educated Muslims argue that democracy is un-Islamic and an ideal Islamic system of governance is a Caliphate. An ideal Caliphate could be some Umayyad/Abbasid model that they conjure up in their heads; but in practice the only beneficiaries of such an anti-democratic approach are the illegitimate tyrants of the Arab World. They claim to be the Caliphs of Islam albeit indirectly and in a nuanced manner: the Servants of the House of God and the Keepers of the Holy places of Islam. 

The illegitimate, hence insecure, tyrants adopt different strategies to maintain their hold on power. They heed to the pragmatic advice of Machiavelli: “Invent enemies and then slay them in order to control your subjects.” The virulently anti-Shi'ite rhetoric of the Salafis and Takfiris is a Machiavellian approach. The Salafis and Takfiris cannot construct a positive narrative that specifies their achievements; that’s why they construct a negative narrative that casts the Evil Other in a negative light. 

The Sunni-Shi'ite conflict is essentially political and economic but is presented to the lay Muslim in a veneer of religiosity. Since Saudi Arabia produces 10 to 15 million barrels of oil per day (equivalent to 15% to 20% of global oil production) it can single-handedly bring down the price of a barrel of oil to US$50 or single-handedly raise it to $200, a nightmare for the global industrialized economies. With 90% of the Saudi oil installations situated along the Persian Gulf, this sparsely populated region comprises the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia and its Shi'ite majority. Any separatist tendency is accordingly met with sternest possible reaction. Saudi Arabia sent its own battalions to help the Bahraini regime quell the Shi'ite minority rebellion in Bahrain, which is also geographically very close to the Eastern Province. 

Al-Qaeda inspired terrorism is a threat to the Western countries; but the Islamic countries are encountering a much bigger threat of inter-sectarian terrorism. For centuries the Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims lived peacefully side by side; but now vested interests are provoking inter-sectarian strife to distract attention away from the popular movements for democracy throughout the Middle East and North Africa region. 

The ultimate goal of the Arab Spring is to overthrow the illegitimate House of Saud, and this tide will not subside until its objective is achieved. There are ebbs and flows in any grassroots political and social movement. It ebbed in Egypt but it will rise again to flood the whole of region. What’s unfortunate is the fact, that the so-called champions of democracy can’t even lend a moral support, let alone the material support; because their interests always outweigh their principles and ideals. 

Wow!

Think of how many buses the Koch Brothers could rent for Tea Party events with $100 billion.

On October 20^th, progressive think tank International Forum on Globalization (IFG) released a report investigating how owners of Koch Industries, Charles and David Koch, will benefit should President Obama allow the Keystone XL Pipeline to be built. The report, entitled Billionaires’ Carbon Bomb: The Koch Keystone XL Pipeline, reveals Koch Industries

substantial interest in the controversial pipeline. Staggering numbers punctuate the report; the Kochs hold

up to 2 million acres in Alberta, could earn $100 billion in profits from the project, and have spent upwards of $50 million on congress and think tanks that heavily push for the pipeline.

The Kochs have long been one of the largest players in the tar sands region of Alberta, Canada. The report connects the Kochs’ 50 year history and large footprint in the Canadian tar sands to the current debate about the pipeline. Since the Kochs are big players, they will be big winners when the pipeline gets built. IFG crunched the numbers and found a frightening answer to why the Kochs have used their influence networks to push for fast-tracking of pipeline – $100 billion in potential profits.

The Kochs have long been one of the largest players in the tar sands region of Alberta, Canada. The report connects the Kochs’ 50 year history and large footprint in the Canadian tar sands to the current debate about the pipeline. Since the Kochs are big players, it stands to reason they will be big winners when the pipeline gets built. IFG crunched the numbers and puts forth a compelling answer to why the Kochs have used their influence networks to push for fast-tracking of pipeline – $100 billion in potential profits.

Other Findings in the report include:

• The Kochs will earn 1 million times more than the average worker of the pipeline.
• The Kochs alone own over 19 billion metric tons of carbon emissions in their tar sands holdings.
• Think tanks funded by the Kochs have released nearly 1000 pro-KXL reports or statements.
• Kochs have already made billions from insider trading and stand to do that again with tar sands.
• Koch Industries has a history of violence against people and the environment.
• The Koch Brothers seek to alter the public debate and control the policy debates in Washington.

“The Kochs have repeatedly claimed that they have no interest in the Keystone XL Pipeline, this report shows that is false.” Said Nathalie Lowenthal-Savy , a researcher with IFG. “We noticed Koch Funded Tea Party members and think tanks pushing for the pipeline. We dug deeper and found $100 billion in potential profit, $50 million sent to organizations supporting the pipeline, and perhaps 2 million acres of land. That sounds like an interest to me.” Nathalie continued, “We all know they will use that money to fund and expand their influence network, subvert democracy, crush unions like in Wisconsin, and get more extremists elected to congress.

“The past two weeks of the government shutdown brought to light the irresponsible influence of Koch-funded groups,” said Bold Nebraska Director, Jane Kleeb. “Rewarding the Koch Brothers with Keystone XL, who at every turn fund campaigns to mislead Americans on everything from climate to gas prices, is like the President advocating for Sen. Cruz to be the Majority Leader. It makes no sense. Farmers and ranchers in Nebraska are depending on Pres. Obama to see our national interest is not served with a pipeline that lines the pockets of climate deniers and foreign oil.”

It is still anybody’s guess if President Obama will approve the northern leg of KXL. He has hinted that he has issues with the project, though he has not denied the permit. It is clear that IFG — and a growing number of other organizations — think the pipeline is in the interest of oil billionaires, not the American public.

You may have wondered

You may have wondered why certain elements of our government (Hello Senator McCain!) are pushing for the U.S. to "intervene" in Syria, especially now that it looks like the Assad regime is coming out on top and the al Qaeda "freedom fighters" are losing and fighting among themselves. 

It seems that someone is being left out of this particular oil pipeline deal. Us.

Iran, Iraq, and Syria have signed a deal for the construction of the Middle East’s largest gas pipeline, which would transit Iranian gas from Iran’s South Pars gas field to Europe via Lebanon and the Mediterranean Sea.

Iraqi Oil Minister Abdelkarim al-Luaybi, Syrian Oil Minister Sufian Allaw, and Iranian caretaker Oil Minister Mohammad Aliabadi inked the memorandum of understanding for the construction of the pipeline on Monday in the southern Iranian port of Assalouyeh, which is the nation’s gas hub. 

According to the deal, Iranian gas will be transited to Greece and other European countries via a 6,000-kilometer pipeline crossing thorough Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon and under the Mediterranean Sea.

“The overall cost of the project is estimated to be around $10 billion,” Iranian Deputy Oil Minister Javad Ouji said after the signing ceremony, the Mehr News Agency reported.

The construction of the pipeline, stretching for several thousand kilometers, “should take three to five years, once funding is secured,” Ouji, who is also the chairman of the National Iranian Gas Company (NIGC), stated on Sunday.

According to the plan, within a month, three working groups are to be established to examine the technical, financial, and legal aspects of the project, which has been under discussion since 2008.

“Soon the feasibility studies will be given to an international consultant,” Ouji stated, but he gave no timetable.

Hopefully, the final agreement for the project can be signed before the end of the year, the Iranian deputy oil minister said on Sunday.

Iran has the second largest proven gas reserves in the world after Russia.

Iraq has said that it needs 10 to 15 million cubic meters of Iranian gas per day. 

By 2020, Syria will need about 15 to 20 million cubic meters of gas per day and Lebanon will need about five to seven million cubic meters of gas per day.

According to projections, Iran’s gas output will double in the next two or three years due to the expansion of gas fields, which will make it possible for the country to export 250 million cubic meters of gas per day.

Earlier this month, Iran and Iraq discussed cooperation on the transfer of Iranian gas through Iraq and Syria to Europe during Iranian First Vice President Mohammad-Reza Rahimi’s visit to Baghdad.

The Iraqi ambassador to Iran, Mohammad Majeed al-Sheikh, said on July 5 that the gas deal would allow Baghdad to use Iran’s natural gas supplies.

It is projected that when it is completed, the pipeline will have the capacity to pump 110 million cubic meters of natural gas per day.

 

Right again

Years ago I wrote about the scam that was "peak oil".

It seems I was right.

"Peak oil" prognosticators have painted pictures of everything from a calm development of alternatives to calamitous shortages, panic and even social collapse as the world reaches its peak of oil production -- and then supplies fall.

But according to the study by researchers at Stanford University and the University of California-Santa Cruz, those scenarios assume that an increasingly wealthy world will use all of the oil pumped out of the ground.

Instead, the historical connection between economic growth and oil use is breaking down -- and will continue to do so -- because of limits on consumption by the wealthy, better fuel efficiency, lower priced alternative fuels and the world's rapidly urbanizing population.

"There is an overabundance of concern about oil depletion and not enough attention focused on the substitutes for conventional oil and other possibilities for reducing our dependence on oil," said study co-author Adam Brandt, assistant professor of energy resources engineering at Stanford's School of Earth Sciences.

The study, published in Environmental Science & Technology,describes a variety of mechanisms that could cause society's need for oil to begin declining by 2035. Several earlier studies have suggested that passenger land travel has already plateaued in industrialized countries and is no longer hitched to economic growth. Passenger land travel now accounts for about half of the global transportation energy demand.

Even in developing countries, economic growth has been less oil-intensive than was seen in the West during the past century. China, for example, sells 20 million electric scooters to its citizens each year as part of the government's policy to reduce air pollution. That exceeds total U.S. passenger vehicle sales annually.

"We've seen explosive growth in car ownership in countries such as China," said co-author Adam Millard-Ball, an assistant professor in the Environmental Studies Department at UC-Santa Cruz. "However, those cars will be more efficient than those of the past, and travel demand will eventually saturate as it has in rich countries such as the United States."

Lower oil dependence

Freight and air travel have shown no such break from economic growth. Rich people may not drive more beyond a certain income level, but they do fly more and buy more belongings, as do people moving out of poverty. Even in air travel and freight, though, energy efficiency has begun to improve after decades of stagnation, lowering oil dependence, according to the new study.

"A major uncertainty is whether demand to move goods around the world will eventually saturate, as we've seen in the case of passenger transport," said Millard-Ball.

Price-competitive alternatives to conventional oil are another factor behind the peak in demand. Competition comes from increasing quantities of fuel from oil sands, liquid fuels from coal, natural gas, biofuels, hydrogen and electricity generated from renewable sources.

Technological advances and the high price of oil are helping most such alternatives compete on price. In 2010, the world produced 1.8 million barrels a day of biofuels, six times the amount in 2000. In Argentina, natural gas fuels 15 percent of all cars, due to policies meant to favor the domestic natural gas industry.

The researchers did not try to forecast peak demand's impact on oil prices. But even if oil prices spend much time above the historical upper range of $140 a barrel, the peak in demand will only come sooner than they forecast.

"If prices rise above their current levels for an extended period, we're likely to see even more efforts to improve efficiency and exploit alternatives to conventional oil," said Millard-Ball. "That would hasten the onset of a demand-driven peak."

Impacts of alternatives

The new research, though encouraging, does not describe a transportation future free of worry. Instead, the researchers recommend a shift in attention to the various alternatives to conventional oil.

Policymakers should not rely on oil scarcity to constrain damage to the world's climate. The alternatives to conventional oil emit varying amounts of greenhouse gases, while large-scale production of biofuels could have a disruptive impact on food prices and on local ecosystems where the plants are grown.

"If you care about the environment, you should care about where we are getting these fuels, whether we use the oil sands or biofuels," said Brandt. "Our study is agnostic on what mix of oil substitutes emerges, but we do know that if we don't manage them well, there will be big consequences."

The study forecasts global oil demand through 2100 under a variety of scenarios for economic growth, population, efficiency gains and fuel substitution. Interested parties can use the study's model, inputting their own set of assumptions athttp://pangea.stanford.edu/researchgroups/eao/research/oil-substitution-and-decline-conventional-oil.

Steven Gorelick, Stanford professor of environmental Earth systems science, and Matthew Ganser, director of engineering at Carbon Lighthouse, are the study's other co-authors.

This is what I wrote in 2006.

Okay, I'm not a scientist or a geologist, or an oil executive.

And I don't think that, what with the earth heating up, we can go on using fossil fuels for all of our energy.

But I don't believe most of the hype about peak oil. First off, this con has been played before. George H. W. Bush, when he was leaving his job as head of the CIA back in 1976, left a report on incoming President Carter's desk saying that the Soviet Union was about to run out of oil. If you know anything about the CIA, it has historically been wedded to the oil industry. Agents and executives have historically passed back and forth. If there had been an official wedding of the CIA and the oil industry George H. W. Bush would have been the little plastic groom on top of the wedding cake.

Since JFK was gunned down in Dallas in 1963 our foreign policy has been all about oil. I'm still not sure how Vietnam fits into all this, but I suspect that someday soon there will be huge deposits announced in the area. Professor Peter Dale Scott identified four coups in 1964 that were backed by the U.S., and they all had something to do with oil. That is, there was oil, the American oil industry wanted it, and the locals were getting uppity.

Well, oil and drugs.

So this is what I know about the oil industry.

When I was back east last fall visiting my 80 year-old mother, one of our tasks was to close an old safety deposit box she'd kept in a bank in the town where she used to live. There wasn't much of value in the box, but there was a letter to my mother from her parents in Mississippi right after the birth of my older sister. This was 1948. My mom's father had sold the oil rights for a piece of property and an oil company had put in a well. In return my mother and her brothers  and sisters would share in royalties for any oil pumped from the property.

Well, for most of the rest of the century that well was capped. Figure fifty years that oil was just sitting there. Then a few years ago they started pumping. And they are pumping a lot now.

I know it's one well, one person's observation. But there was always oil there. It was just time to uncap the well and start getting the stuff out of the earth.

We know there are oil deposits all over the place. As I write there are plans for extracting oil out of huge deposits of gunky sand up in western Canada. Back in the 1930s the Germans and the Standard Oil swapped different patents with the Germans ending up with the coal gassification patent. In fact, the Germans did produce quite a bit of their fuel from coal during WWII. So there's a lot of oil that isn't even oil. There's all sorts of processes for making diesel-grade fuel from carbon-based organic garbage. So there's oil in stuff that isn't even oil.

And they keep finding oil. Just last week they announced a big oil find in, believe it or not, Afghanistan! My guess is that you can find oil just about any place around the globe where you find American soldiers.

So what does it mean that much of Iraq's oil production has been offline since the first Gulf War? What does it mean that a war with Iran might shut down the entire region's oil supply? It means that every barrel is that much more expensive. Just imagine them capping all those wells for future pumping.

Remember, Exxon and the other oil companies don't pay for the bills that the U.S. armed forces are racking up. American taxpayers do, or more accurately, their children and grandchildren will. Oil companies may just have another country's army working for them when all the bills come due.

And then they can uncap all those wells that have been sitting around for fifty years or so.

Why is this man smiling?

Who's happy that American citizens won't be able to vote?

The Supreme Court struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act on Tuesday, the provision of the landmark civil rights law that designates which parts of the country must have changes to their voting laws cleared by the federal government or in federal court.

The 5-4 ruling, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, ruled in Shelby County v. Holder that “things have changed dramatically” in the South in the nearly 50 years since the Voting Rights Act was signed in 1965.

The court’s opinion said it did not strike down the act of Congress “lightly,” and said it “took care to avoid ruling on the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act” in a separate case back in 2009. “Congress could have updated the coverage formula at that time, but did not do so. Its failure to act leaves us today with no choice but to declare [Section 4] unconstitutional. The formula in that section can no longer be used as a basis for subjecting jurisdictions to preclearance.”

The Voting Rights Act has recently been used to block a voter ID law in Texas and delay the implementation of another in South Carolina. Both states are no longer subject to the preclearance requirement because of the court’s ruling on Tuesday.

“Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions,” Roberts wrote.

“There is no doubt that these improvements are in large part because of the Voting Rights Act," he wrote. "The Act has proved immensely successful at redressing racial discrimination and integrating the voting process."

In his bench statement, Roberts said that Congress had extended a 40-year-old coverage formula based on "obsolete statistics and that the coverage formula "violates the constitution."

Congress, the court ruled, “may draft another formula based on current conditions.” But given the fact that Republicans currently control the House of Representatives, many voting rights advocates consider it unlikely that Congress will act to create a new formula.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg issued a wide-ranging dissent on behalf of herself and Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, justifying the continued vitality of the Voting Rights Act's preclearance provision.

"The sad irony of today’s decision lies in its utter failure to grasp why the VRA has proven effective," Ginsburg wrote. "The Court appears to believe that the VRA’s success in eliminating the specific devices extant in 1965 means that preclear­ance is no longer needed."

The court did not rule on Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the preclearance requirement itself, which requires those affected states to have changes to their voting laws cleared by the Justice Department or a federal court in Washington, D.C., before they go into effect. Rather, the court ruled that the current formula that determines which states are covered by Section 5 is unconstitutional, effectively eliminating Section 5 enforcement, at least for the time being.

"In the Court’s view, the very success of §5 of the Voting Rights Act demands its dormancy," Ginsburg wrote.

She said in her bench statement that in renewing Section 5 in 2006, Congress "found that 40 years has not been a sufficient amount of time to eliminate the vestiges of discrimination following nearly 100 years of disregard for the 15th Amendment."

The provision has proven "enormously successful" in increasing minority registration and access to the ballot and preventing a "return to old ways," Ginsburg said. Even in jurisdictions where discrimination may not be overt, "subtle methods" have emerged to diminish minority turnout, such as racial gerrymandering.

As for Section 4, Ginsburg wrote that "the record for the 2006 reauthorization makes abundantly clear [that] second-generation barriers to minority voting rights have emerged in the covered jurisdictions as at­tempted substitutes for the first-generation barriers that originally triggered preclearance in those jurisdictions."

"Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan and I are of the view that Congress' decision to extend the act and keep the formula was a rational one," Ginsburg said.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas reiterated his belief that Section 5 is also unconstitutional, a position he took in his dissent from the Court's previous encounter with the Voting Rights Act in 2009.

"However one aggregates the data compiled by Congress, it cannot justify the considerable burdens created by §5," Thomas wrote on Tuesday.

The Obama Justice Department, believing the court might strike down Section 5 in the 2009 case, devised a plan to react to the ruling. A Justice Department spokeswoman did not immediately respond to a request for comment Tuesday.

Voting rights advocates condemned the Supreme Court’s ruling.

“The Supreme Court has effectively gutted one of the nation's most important and effective civil rights laws,” Jon Greenbaum, chief counsel for the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, said in a statement. “Minority voters in places with a record of discrimination are now at greater risk of being disenfranchised than they have been in decades. Today's decision is a blow to democracy. Jurisdictions will be able to enact policies which prevent minorities from voting, and the only recourse these citizens will have will be expensive and time-consuming litigation.”

“Today’s U.S. Supreme Court decision erases fundamental protections against racial discrimination in voting that have been effective for more than 40 years,” Elisabeth MacNamara, president of the League of Women Voters of the United States, said in a statement. “Congress must act quickly to restore the Voting Rights Act.”

“Today will be remembered as a step backwards in the march towards equal rights,” said Sherrilyn Ifill, President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. “We must ensure that this day is just a page in our nation’s history, rather than the return to a dark chapter."

“The Roberts Court proved again that it will not be deterred by Supreme Court precedent, the realities on the ground in our nation; nor will it defer to Congress even when the legislative branch is granted clear authority by the Constitution to remedy our nation's long history of discrimination against racial and language minorities,” said J. Gerald Hebert of the Campaign Legal Center. “The Court today declared racism dead in this country despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.”

Interesting Infographics on tax havens

If you want to know where Mitt and his constituency hide their money, check this out.

What could go wrong?

Surprise surprise (part 73)

This.

A bad enough situation
Is sure enough getting worse
Everybody's crying justice
Just as soon as there's business first

-from "Everybody's Crying Mercy" by Mose Allison

Who needs alternative energy?

We do.

Is God ticked off about us not using solar power too?

I realize that there are true, actual idiots in this world, but why would anyone take him out of the parlor and have him say stupid stuff on TV?

Bryan Fischer, the director of issues analysis of the conservative fundamentalist American Family Association, on Thursday told a so-called “expert” who denies climate change that not using God’s fossil fuels would be like “crushing” someone’s feelings by rejecting their birthday present.

The Cornwall Alliance’s Calvin Beisner, who has previously said that believing in climate change “is an insult to God,” explained on Thursday that the Bible said it was also very rude to not use oil, coal and natural gas.

“The wicked and lazy master was the one who buried his talent in the ground and didn’t do anything to multiply it,” Beisner explained. “That’s essentially what those who say we need to stop using oil, coal and natural gas are telling us to do. Just leave those resources buried in the ground, rather than pulling them out and multiplying their value for human benefit.”