Categories
Economics Environment

[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?

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reservedp/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.

Categories
Activism Liberty

[1055] Of Tak Nak NST

Oh heck. What the hell.

Some rights reserved. By Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams.

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.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

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.

Categories
Books, essays and others Conflict & disaster Economics Liberty

[1054] Of Immanuel Kant, free trade and peace

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
Liberty

[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.

Categories
Politics & government

[1052] Of mark February 10

Mark February 10 in your calendar people. Why?

And that’s why I [Barack Obama] wanted to tell you first that I’ll be filing papers today to create a presidential exploratory committee. For the next several weeks, I am going to talk with people from around the country, listening and learning more about the challenges we face as a nation, the opportunities that lie before us, and the role that a presidential campaign might play in bringing our country together. And on February 10th, at the end of these decisions and in my home state of Illinois, I’ll share my plans with my friends, neighbors and fellow Americans.

While I was watching Barack Obama addressing at the DNC in Boston on TV long ago, I thought he was the star of the day. I still remember of him speaking something to the effect of “there is no red state, there is no blue but there is a United States of America.” That, as an non-American living in America during the 2004 election, moved me a lot. I thought, if only Malaysia has a politician like him that unites us all, instead of driving a wedge through us all.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reservedp/s – sharing is good. The Obama speech at the DNC that touches the no red, no blue state:

Yet even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters and negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes. Well, I say to them tonight, there’s not a liberal America and a conservative America — there’s the United States of America. There’s not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there’s the United States of America. The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I’ve got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don’t like federal agents poking around our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and have gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported it. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.

Beautiful, is it not?