Joe Kraynak

Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution–and How It Can Renew America

I haven’t read the book, but I watched Thomas L. Friedman on Meet the Press last Sunday. Based solely on what I heard during the interview, I can’t believe that this book is a number 1 bestseller.

Why? Because I remember hearing this same sort of thing back in 2000.

In fact, if Friedman had a paper bag over his head, I would’ve sworn it was Al Gore. One of Gore’s central themes during his 2000 presidential campaign was to use global warming as a way to stimulate economic growth through the development of green technologies.

If you’ve read the book (or you happen to be Thomas L. Friedman, not Al Gore pretending to be Thomas L. Friedman or vice versa), please let me know what you think. Maybe you can convince me that it’s worth reading. Friedman certainly didn’t convince me through his appearance on Meet the Press.

Switching Parties in Indiana

Indiana has some pretty strange laws, but the law governing how you can vote in the primaries is perhaps the oddest of all. Recently, I was wondering whether a Republican voter could cast a vote for Hillary or Obama in the upcoming primary. The short answer is yes, but it’s a bit more complicated than that. According to Indiana law, a person may vote in a particular party’s primary only if that person has cast a majority of votes for that party’s candidates in prior general elections or plans to do so in the upcoming general election.

If you’re a die-hard Republican, for example, and you want to vote for Hillary in the primary, because your vote really won’t count in the Republican presidential primary and you think McCain will have an easier time beating Hillary than Obama, be careful. If one of the poll workers knows that you typically vote Republican, he or she can challenge your vote. Before you could cast your vote for Hillary, you’d have to sign an affidavit indicating that you voted primarily for Democrats in past general elections or plan to do so in the next general election. And if you didn’t vote primarily for Democrats in the past and fail to do so in the upcoming general election (and someone invests the time and effort to prove it and press the issue), you could be found guilty of voter fraud. (Does anyone out there know the penalty for this type of voter fraud in Indiana? I’m sure it’s not as serious as posing as someone who’s deceased in order to cast another vote for your candidate.)

Because this law obviously is so difficult to enforce, it basically comes down to acting on the honor system. If you plan on switching parties in Indiana, you can do so in the next primary, but make sure you plan on remaining a Democrat at least through next November’s general election.

What Does Al-Qaeda Want?

A close friend of mine recently mentioned a book that one of his friends, Robert O. Marlin IV, had put together called What Does Al-Qaeda Want? When I expressed interest in the topic, my friend proceeded to send me a copy, which I have just finished reading.

As a matter of critique, I was a little disappointed by the commentary, or lack thereof. The book consists of a collection of unedited communiqués along with a “brief introduction to each document [that] provides some historical context to aid our understanding of the fundamental issues as articulated by the authors.” The purpose of the book is supposedly, in the commentator’s own words, “to provide a perspective on al-Qaeda’s goals through a representative sample of the written demands of Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda network.” I really wanted to know what Marlin thought of al-Qaeda. When I presented my review to Marlin, he replied as follows (the complete text of Marlin’s reply to my review follows this post):

I was pleased that you were unable to discern my thoughts regarding al-Qaeda as I sought to avoid bias in the presentation of the documents. It was never my intention to write a polemic and I hoped that critical readers would examine the materials and draw their own conclusions.

Fair enough, but after reading the book, I came away thinking that the book’s real purpose was to spread al-Qaeda propaganda and try to convince readers that Osama bin Laden and his henchman are reasonable fellows who just have the same dreams and goals for their families that we have for ours. If we were just good listeners, perhaps we could come to a better understanding with them and be friends. (Again, this is the assumption I made after reading the book. Please read Marlin’s response following this post.)

You can certainly read the entire 100 pages of the book, but I could pretty much figure out what Osama bin-Laden and al-Qaeda want by reading 1a of Document 11: Bin Laden’s “Letter to America” dated November 24, 2002 (on pages 64-65 of the book). In answer to Question 2: What are we (al Qaeda) calling you (Americans and allies) to, and what do we want from you? Bin Laden answers:

1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.
(a) The religion of the Unification of God; of freedom from associating partners with Him, and rejection of this; of complete love of Him, the Exalted; of complete submission to His Laws; and of the discarding of all the opinions, orders, theories, and religions which contradict the religion He sent down to His Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Islam is the religion of all the prophets, and makes no distinction between them—peace be upon them all.

It is to this religion that we call you; the seal of all the previous religions. It is the religion of the Unification of God, sincerity, the best of manners, righteousness, mercy, honor, purity, and piety. It is the religion of showing kindness to others, establishing justice between them, granting them their rights, and defending the oppressed and the persecuted…

In other words, bin Laden wants us to subject ourselves to his interpretation of God’s law.

If I have any advice for bin Laden, it’s this: Don’t start negotiations with a deal killer. What you’re calling us to do is not going to happen. Christians, Jews, Buddhists, and other people of faith are not about to simply relinquish their beliefs because you believe your religion is superior, no matter how many ancient Buddhist statues you and your ignorant madmen blow up, no matter how many innocent people you kill in the name of Allah. Nor are we going to trade our freedoms for the tyranny of your interpretation of Islam law.

Like most of the dangerously self-righteous people in this world, bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders come across through their many communiqués to be more than a little naive and very confused. On page 27 of this book, for example, bin Laden is quoted as saying, “God, praise and glory be to Him, has prohibited the killing of women and children unless the women are active fighters….” I can only guess that he made the mistaken assumption that America evacuated all the innocent women and children from in and around the World Trade Center before al Qaeda flew those planes into the towers, OR he honestly believes that the women and children he killed were active fighters.

More over, from what they say, al Qaeda’s purpose is to convince U.S. citizens to essentially replace our leaders (I’m guessing our business leaders as well as our political leaders) with people who are more Muslim-friendly. Their method for getting us on their side, however, seems a little counterproductive – killing over 3,000 civilians in an attack on the World Trade Center is not going to make us their allies.

Another thing I find inconceivable is the fact that bin Laden and his ilk hold all Americans and Jews individually and collectively responsible for just about everything that he feels is wrong in the Middle East. Wake up, bin Laden - Muslims are partially responsible. What if we were to hold every Muslim responsible for your crimes? Would that make any sense? If this is the kind of logic you are calling me to embrace, count me out.

The more I read about al-Qaeda and the more I think about the group, the more I come to realize that this is fast becoming a classic case of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Al-Qaeda is so convinced and afraid that “the crusaders” are going to try to conquer the Muslims and drive them from their lands, that every action they take brings this closer to happening. As bin Laden and his crew whip the Muslim world into a frenzy of blind hatred against the West, they are stimulating the fears of non-Muslims everywhere and inspiring hatred against all Muslims. If there was any time when the greatest fear was fear itself, this is it.

I can only hope that cooler heads prevail, but if it comes to choosing sides, I believe the West is the best, and after reading this collection of communiqués, I believe more than ever that al Qaeda needs to be eradicated from the planet. Unfortunately, these cowards not only kill innocents, but they also hide amongst them. That makes it difficult for anyone with a conscience to kill them without killing a few innocent bystanders. At least we feel bad about killing innocent bystanders - al Qaeda goes out of its way to do it.

Obviously, this book ruffled my feathers, but I don’t mean to take out my frustration on Marlin. I think the book is valuable as a resource for helping readers gain a better understanding of what al Qaeda wants, but I think the only conclusion that critical readers can possibly come to after reading this book is that what al Qaeda wants and how it goes about trying to get it is anything but reasonable.

Marlin’s Response via Email

As the editor, I attempted to offer a representative sample of documents that provided a perspective of al-Qaeda’s goals and to expose the reader to “direct testimony from the leadership of al-Qaeda regarding the development and justification of their movement.” (p. ix) I was pleased that you were unable to discern my thoughts regarding al-Qaeda as I sought to avoid bias in the presentation of the documents. It was never my intention to write a polemic and I hoped that critical readers would examine the materials and draw their own conclusions.

I was disappointed in your assessment of the book’s purpose, although it was not meant as a diatribe either. I anticipated, that by examining the communiqués, readers would enhance their understanding of what bin-Laden was thinking and why by confronting “al-Qaeda’s purpose and demands in the words of its spokesmen.” (p. ix). While in no way did I mean to indicate that Osama or his “henchmen” were “reasonable fellows” I leave that decision to the informed reader. However, I confess my belief that many al-Qaeda members probably do share “the same dreams and goals for their families as we have for ours.” To believe otherwise appears a bit ethnocentric to me.

Again, the communiqués were chosen to enable the critical reader to discern the fundamental convictions underlying the group’s demands and to decide for themselves the validity of those demands.

The Politics of Global Warming

In “Global Warming? I Dunno,” I discussed my reservations about buying into the global warming alarmists belief that Earth is warming due to human activities. The May 2008 edition of the Trumpet carries a report written by Brad MacDonald entitled, “A Really Inconvenient Truth,” in which he exposes some of the political pressure tactics used to promote the global warming alarmists’ agenda.

Of course, everyone has a right to his or her own opinion, and we do need to manage our natural resources wisely, so I support many of the goals of the “alarmists.” The problem I have with them is the way they’re going about it—politicizing science and browbeating scientists whose research results contradict their own conclusions. That’s no way to get at the truth, however inconvenient the proper approach may be.

Time for Moderate Muslims to Speak Up

Yesterday, I read all about the world outrage (Muslim and Non-Muslim alike) over Dutch Member of Parliament Geert Wilders’ anti-Islamist film. Today, I read a story on FoxNEWS entitled, “Report: Non-Muslims Deserve to Be Punished,” claiming that Imam Abdul Makin says it’s okay to kill and rape non-Muslims. Yet, I hear no world condemnation of these remarks.

I watched Wilders’ film, and it smacks of propaganda to me, more for what it didn’t say than for what it said, but it does not condone the killing and raping of Islamists, let alone all Muslims.

I think it’s high time we do away with the double standard that allows others to spew words and deeds of hate against us without some public outcry. Do we hate ourselves that much?

Moreover, the silence from the “moderate” Muslims is almost deafening. Let’s hear it, my brothers… and sisters.

I greatly respect the Muslim dedication to religion and the daily awareness of a higher being. I think these traits are to be commended. But if we’re going to have any chance at a peaceful co-existence among Christians and Muslims, then I think the moderate Muslims are going to have to put a little more effort into convincing their radical counterparts to be a wee bit more tolerant. At least speak out when someone says it’s quite alright to kill and rape non-Muslims.