You know, I think that the world would be a much tidier and peaceful place if it wasn't for those annoying Jews. Especially the ones in Israel.
For example, this morning's Boston Globe has an editorial about poor, beknighted Lebanon. The country has been used and abused over the years, treated as a vassal state by Syria and used as a proxy by both Syria and Iran against Israel. The local franchise of the Syrian/Iranian axis, Hezbollah, has fecklessly and fearlessly launched attack after attack against Israel, then run and hid to leave the Lebanese to face the inevitable reprisals. The members of the government trying to get out from under the Syrians' and Iranians' thumbs has had troubles, too -- every single time they think they're making progress towards independence, Israel goes and launches a counterstrike and knocks it all topsy-turvy, and the Lebanese people find themselves having to side with either the Israelis dropping bombs on their territory or the foreign-inspired and led terrorists who started the fighting. It's a vicious cycle, and there seems to be no escape for the Lebanese people as long as the Israelis keep hitting back. (See extended section for more thoughts on the Globe editorial.)
Then there's OPEC. There's news that an Israeli company, not content with all the other trouble and mischief they cause to the Arab world, is now threatening their bread and butter -- the near-monopoly they have on oil. A. F. S. K. Hom Tov says it has developed a technique for extracting crude oil from oil shale.
This is nothing new, actually. We've known how to do that for years. Hom Tov's big breakthrough is in the price. The last time I checked, extracted shale oil ran about a hundred bucks a barrel, or roughly 150% of current oil prices. Hom Tov says they can do it for $17/barrel, or one-quarter what oil runs lately. Even at double their estimates, countries with a lot of shale could still undercut OPEC prices by half. Countries like Canada and the United States -- and Israel.
I find myself agreeing with a lot of Muslims -- the world would be a much simpler place if we could somehow get rid of Israel and the Jews.
Simpler, yeah -- but a hell of a lot worse.
I think the thing that really, really pisses me off is the appropriation of the "canary" metaphor for the Lebanese. For years, I've heard the theory that Jews are like canaries in coal mines -- when it starts getting bad for Jews in a country or region, it's going to be bad for everyone else soon. It's an observation that's tended to stand the test of time, and the notion of applying it to a country that's allowed itself to become a base for attacks on Jews time and time again is more than a little repugnant.
But not that unexpected. To simultaneously deny the suffering of the Jews while accusing them of perpetrating the very same acts is one of anti-semitism's oldest tricks. Witness how Iran simultaneously denies the historic fact of the Holocaust, while promising a new one. Or the constant Nazi imagery in anti-Israeli propaganda, where the Jews are seen as the Nazis. Or the... well you get the idea.



Comments (14)
Coincidence:<a hre... (Below threshold)1. Posted by rightnumberone | November 17, 2006 7:28 AM | Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Coincidence:
Interior Department clears way for experiments in extracting shale oil in Colorado
I think not! Those crafty, crafty Jews!
This is clearly the first salvo in the REAL WAR against Islam.
1. Posted by rightnumberone | November 17, 2006 7:28 AM |
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on November 17, 2006 07:28
2. Posted by rightnumberone | November 17, 2006 7:34 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Can you feel the OUTRAGE yet?
CAIR is firing up their press release machines as we speak.
Their spin will be that digging for shale oil is offensive to Muslims and is a slap in the face to Mohammed, their prophet, and that we must stop immediately, or risk "consequences."
2. Posted by rightnumberone | November 17, 2006 7:34 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on November 17, 2006 07:34
3. Posted by Jumpinjoe | November 17, 2006 7:56 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Adding my two-cents.....
The dirty little secret about the "there is only 6 months worth of oil in ANWAR" talking point from the "left" is the fact that figure was meant if no other source was taken into consideration.
For example 6 months means no domestic or foreign oil is thrown into the equation. But the left wants you to believe through pure deception that it means once the spigot is turn on it will run dry in half a year. And that isn't worth disturbing the caribou for such a small amount.
By all measures ANWR is probably the largest single oil field in this hemisphere. Using the real figures of adding other sources we could cut off Saudi oil out of our supply for good as leverage in dealing with the Middle East.
But you can't convince the lefties that this is in our long-term best interests. They are still stuck on stupid with the chant of "only 6 months worth of oil".
And when their only answer back is we must invest in alternative sources, I won't disagree. But until the Mr. Fusion attachment for your car is ready for market we must not be held hostage to OPEC.
There, that's off my chest.....
Cheers.....
3. Posted by Jumpinjoe | November 17, 2006 7:56 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on November 17, 2006 07:56
4. Posted by rightnumberone | November 17, 2006 8:02 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Joe,
I second what you've written, but would remind you that the left, while newly empowered, didn't prevent drilling in ANWR.
The Republicans, who were in control of the House, Senate and White House for the past 6 years prevented drilling in ANWR.
It's one of the reasons they are now in the minority.
They just don't get it that we Americans get a really, really bad taste in our mouths every time we fill up the gas tank, knowing that money is going to be used by the Saudi's to build radical Mosques right here in the United States.
4. Posted by rightnumberone | November 17, 2006 8:02 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on November 17, 2006 08:02
5. Posted by Joe | November 17, 2006 8:23 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I like this part:
"....there seems to be no escape for the Lebanese people as long as the Israelis keep hitting back."
Typical adolescent behaviour. Its all somebody else's fault. The Lebanese are W-E-A-K as a government and are incapable of stopping the terrorists based in their country. So rather than deal with their (Lebanese) terrorist problem, blame someone else for actions taken against their (Lebanese) based terrorists.
Those pesky Jooos. Always wanting to stand up for their right to live! It would be so much easier if they would just quit defending themselves, commit suicide and invite the U.N. in to keep the peace.
5. Posted by Joe | November 17, 2006 8:23 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on November 17, 2006 08:23
6. Posted by Wanderlust | November 17, 2006 8:33 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Ok, I can't resist...based on today's news, here's a possible reinterpretation of one of my favorite little hadiths:
"A Muslim will hide behind an oil shale rock, and the oil shale rock will call upon the members of Dar al Harb: "O Beloved, O child of Yahweh! There is a Muslim behind me, sucking oil out of the ground like a tick sucks the blood of the dog, to hurt our House, come and kill his source of wealth!".
Ahhh, I feel so much better.
Do I get a discount on multiple fatwas now?
6. Posted by Wanderlust | November 17, 2006 8:33 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on November 17, 2006 08:33
7. Posted by Jumpinjoe | November 17, 2006 8:35 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Rightnumberone,
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the White House was for drilling, the Republican House was for drilling, the Republican Senate was for drilling, but was it not filibustered by Democrats, thus needing 60 votes to open up for drilling. Some RINO's did side with Democrats but there was still a simple majority there to open ANWAR.
For brevities sake, I'm posting this without links because I'm off to the grindstone. However, when I return, time permitting I will research this further.
7. Posted by Jumpinjoe | November 17, 2006 8:35 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on November 17, 2006 08:35
8. Posted by drjohn | November 17, 2006 9:15 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
This is going to be an insult to all of Islam!
I need a fatwa.
NOW!
8. Posted by drjohn | November 17, 2006 9:15 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on November 17, 2006 09:15
9. Posted by Cousin Dave | November 17, 2006 10:31 AM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Shale oil at 17 bucks a barrel? Holy crap! I seem to recall from back in the mid-'70s, the last time shale oil was looked at seriously, that the estimated reserves of shale oil in the western U.S. exceeded the combined total of all of the known finds ever found in the country up to that point. If we could get to using nuclear and some coal for baseline power generation and reserve oil use mainly for transportation and petrochemical manufacturing, we could solve the Middle East problem in one fell swoop by simply making it irrelevant.
9. Posted by Cousin Dave | November 17, 2006 10:31 AM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on November 17, 2006 10:31
10. Posted by Cousin Dave | November 17, 2006 10:35 AM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
And I should add that one reason shale use didn't get started back in the '70s was not necessarily that shale was inherently too expensive. It was because back then, conventional crude oil was regulated (a contributing factor to the gasoline shortages of that decade). Shale couldn't compete with the artificially low regulated prices for conventional crude. By the time Reagan got conventional crude deregulated, around 1981, investment money had lost interest in shale.
10. Posted by Cousin Dave | November 17, 2006 10:35 AM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on November 17, 2006 10:35
11. Posted by Bonnie | November 17, 2006 10:58 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Jumpinjoe, I just watched "Back to the Future" with my kids. I realized that we're living 20 years into the future of Back to the Future.
Where is Mr. Fusion? (sobs) But with Bush's deregulation of the energy industry, we might finally see cheap nuclear energy, oil shale, and clean natural gas like the monster gas field in Wyoming (The Jonah Field.) Perhaps even Mr. Fusion.
Then the Arabs can go back to tending camels and eating sand while we set up Moon Base Alpha.
Hey, I can dream.
11. Posted by Bonnie | November 17, 2006 10:58 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on November 17, 2006 10:58
12. Posted by Scott | November 17, 2006 11:27 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I have read estimates of up to 800 BILLION barrels of oil in the Green River Basin in Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado.
The San Juan plateau in the Four Corners region has over 100 TRILLION cubic feet of natural gas. It's also the world's largest uranium field.
There are trillions more cubic feet of gas off our coasts.
Alberta has almost as much oil as Saudi Arabia.
Add in ANWR, the Gulf of Mexico, and the outer shelf, and you see we really have no reason to import energy sources from the Middle East.
We will never be free to deal with the Saudi-funded Jihad until we end our reliance on "their" oil (which we found, which we pump out of the ground, which we refine, which we transport, which...well you get it).
12. Posted by Scott | November 17, 2006 11:27 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on November 17, 2006 11:27
13. Posted by rightnumberone | November 17, 2006 11:42 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Bonnie,
It gets even BETTER.
We've figure out how to terraform Mars. Fire up the big frickin' space mirrors Chekov!
13. Posted by rightnumberone | November 17, 2006 11:42 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on November 17, 2006 11:42
14. Posted by Kapow | November 17, 2006 4:57 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Maybe someone already pointed this out, but the word is benighted - refering to night and/or darkness - not beknighted, which presumably would refer to someone or soemthing that has been tapped on the shoulder with a sword.
14. Posted by Kapow | November 17, 2006 4:57 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on November 17, 2006 16:57