So, whoever you are, be warned. I will delete it without hesitation.
Also, I am tired of spams. Therefore, I have added an anti-spam measure. I apologize for any inconvenience caused by the new function.
Categories
[1056] Of Exxon surrenders!
After being attacked from all sides by the greens and allies, one of the great global warming deniers surrenders (via via via):
Jan. 12, 2007 — Oil major Exxon Mobil Corp. is engaging in industry talks on possible U.S. greenhouse gas emissions regulations, a move experts said could indicate a change in stance from the long-time foe of limits on greenhouse emissions.
Why does Petronas plan to act on global warming?
I wonder, where does Petronas sit in the climate debate?
p/s — from Making Waves of Greenpeace:
A couple years back, our intrepid Greenpeace US research team — through their work on the ExxonSecrets website — exposed the role that Exxon-funded Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) was playing in trying to ensure Global Warming didn’t impact US energy policy — absurdly in one case being asked to play political assassin by folks in the Bush Administration’s Council for Environmental Quality who thought the Bush Administration EPA chief wasn’t skeptical enough about climate change. (They uncovered a nice little smoking gun memo exposing the collusion.)
Two years ago, I blogged about ExxonSecrets.
Oh heck. What the hell.
With the talk about free speech and all, what are you going to do about it, realistically?
Paste a banner on your blog and then do nothing?
I propose a boycott on NST. Read ’em but don’t buy ’em. Hit them where it hurts the most.
p/s — There might be a misunderstanding caused by this entry. I have nothing against defamation law. NST has every right to seek right of redress from Jeff Ooi and Rocky’s Bru, if Jeff Ooi and Rocky’s Bru are indeed guilty of defamation. By that, I am not implying that Jeff Ooi and Rocky’s Bru have committed fraud or defamation. I am just saying that the post has little relevant to the case, originally.
This post is one of those entries that try to ride on a wave but not actually part of the wave. I am targeting NST not because of the current lawsuit. Rather, it is because of NST’s biased reporting. I do however sympathize with the two bloggers.
Notwithstanding the right, I do not feel the redress NST is seeking is not sufficiently justified. I doubt that the two bloggers have made malicious false statements against NST. If there are strong proofs of otherwise, I would be glad to rescind my sympathy towards the two bloggers and even support prosecution. But I still will not buy NST.
Please differentiate the such right from such justification. I disagree with the justification, not the right. For this reason, I do not plan to endorse “Blogger United” or paste their banner here on my blog. The “movement” seems to deny the right to redress while dismissing NST’s allegation.
John and SiPM might have described what my position on the case.
By virtue of their mutual interest does nature unite people against violence and war… the spirit of trade cannot coexist with war, and sooner or later this spirit dominates every people. For among all those powers… that belong to a nation, financial power may be the most reliable in forcing nations to pursue the noble cause of peace… and wherever in the world war threatens to break out, they will try to head it off through mediation, just as if they were permanently leagued for this purpose
— Immanuel Kant, Perpetual Peace, 1795.
Categories
[1053] Of Liberal Islam is not liberalism
I have a tingling suspicion that the school of Liberal Islam is not part of liberalism. Earlier, I have reasoned that while I am a liberal, I am not a member of Liberal Islam. This entry will further strengthen that assertion.
Forgive me but when I refer to liberalism, I really mean classical liberalism. Nowadays, the core concepts of liberalism have won the global ideological battle so greatly that almost everybody at least gives a lip service to liberalism in order to share the victor’s glory. Everybody loves winners and this includes Liberal Islam. Even religious conservatives through varying degree nominally accept certain aspect unique to or introduced by liberalism. Thus, I must qualify liberalism before I go on.
The problem with Liberal Islam is that, it does not hold the concept of liberty for the sake of liberty. Rather, it holds liberty — particularly civil liberty — because the school interprets the sources of Islam to allow as such. Whatever the conservative camps are saying, Liberal Islam still refers back to the sources of Islam. At the very least, it is the Koran. A real liberal does not embrace liberalism because “revealed knowledge” tells him or her to do so. A real liberal embraces liberalism simply for the sake of liberty through his or her own reasoning. A real liberal is not a slave that follows every order or commandment presented to him or her. A real liberal thinks for him or herself.
If it is true that Liberal Islam is not part of liberalism, why does Liberal Islam call itself Liberal Islam?
I would venture to say that the term “liberal” of Liberal Islam acts as a superlative. The term “liberal” in Liberal Islam simply describes the fact that Liberal Islam is more liberal in its interpretation of the sources of Islam compared to that of religious conservatives’. Nothing more. In comparison, the same reasoning is meaningless in liberalism; it should be meaningless simply because “revealed knowledge” is irrelevant.
It is no question that some of the tenets of Liberal Islam are similar to that of liberalism. Nevertheless, Liberal Islam does not go as far as liberalism in embracing liberty. And that liberty encompasses more than civil liberties. Free market is an important pillar in liberalism but Liberal Islam does not seem to stress too much of it.
The fact that term “liberal” in Liberal Islam is a superlative, a socialist could be a member of Liberal Islam. Socialism is affirmatively not part of liberalism. If socialism were liberalism, then the Cold War would not have made sense.