Clarice Feldman at American Thinker has some thoughts:
Please read the whole thing.
It's hard to conclude that this $500 million Al-Jazeera purchase is anything other than a payoff for effectively hampering the exploitation of American carbon fuels and advocating openly for giving a cable entrée to this Arab-broadcasting network. Current TV isn't worth anything like the price paid for it...
Buying up the almost worthless Current TV at an exorbitant price and securing the advocacy of Al Gore is only part of the Middle East oil producers' efforts to halt our use of shale gas. Other strategic moves including getting celebrities, style setters and opinion makers onboard.
The first fairly public effort in this direction is the ridiculous anti-fracking film starring Matt Damon financed in part by OPEC member United Arab Emirates.
Please read the whole thing.
The irony is that Big Green Al sold his share of a cable T.V. channel for a cool $100 million payday from Big Oil. Muslim Big Oil, to be exact. The new owner, Al-Jazeera, is a mouthpiece for the Muslim Brotherhood, a viciously anti-Semitic cabal that would love to have a foothold in the American media market.
In an unrelated story:
Saudis Sweating Bullets As Energy Revolution Changes The Rules.
The US shale gas boom, drastically cutting the cost of gas, is shaking the foundations of the Saudi Arabian economic model -- and more is coming. The highly profitable $100bn Gulf petrochemical industry is taking a hit as its biggest customer -- the U.S. -- is importing less and relying instead on domestic production.
US petrochemical companies, propelled by cheaper access to raw materials, are competing effectively against companies like the Saudi Basic Industries Corp (Sabic), the world's largest chemical maker.
Nothing to see here, folks. Just move along...
I hope this post is an elaborate joke. It is hard to take the old fart-knockers of American Thinker seriously.
How about taking the points made in the post seriously. Or do you have full confidence in the integrity of Al Gore, Al Jeezera, and Islamic Big Oil?Delete
Or is the Discovery Institute the only folks who conspire?
Sorry, Dr. Egnor, but I can't take Ms. Feldman's points seriously.Delete
Given the current prices of oil, the Saudi oil producers are making out like bandits. Saudi oil is cheap to produce. And although they export less oil to the US, their overall oil exports have gone up slightly in recent years. Ms. Feldman seems unaware of all that.
It is mind-boggling that you read American Thinker and take it at face value. It is perhaps one of the least intelligent right-wing media sources, and that is saying a lot.
Who cares what you think about American Thinker? Why is it that you lefties always argue ad-hominem, evading the facts at issue?Delete
What do your points about the Saudis have to do with the issues my post raised? Why did Gore sell to Big Oil, and why did they pay so much?
Do you think it is purely a coincidence that Big Al makes a cool 100 million from the same guys who stand to gain enormously from Big Al's attacks on the American oil industry?
Why did Gore sell American media access to Al Jeezera, an anti-Semitic subsidiary of the Muslim Brotherhood?Delete
Gore took a huge payday from Big Oil anti-Semites.
You are not making any sense.
Al Jazeera (please note the spelling) is a broadcaster that was owned by the government of Qatar until 2011. It is now owned by a Qatar sheikh, who served in the Qatar government.
Muslim Brotherhood is an Egyptian political organization. Although its influence has spread into other Arab countries, Qatar is not among them.
The link between Al Jazeera and Muslim Brotherhood is a figment of your imagination.
@mregnor: I share Hoo's skepticism. I have found Al Jazeera to be one out the better international news outlets, and have never seen any evidence that it is a mouthpiece of Big Oil or the Muslim Brotherhood. Do you have any?Delete
"For example, Al Jazeera gives Imam Yusuf Al-Qardawi, the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, regularly an outlet to spew his hatred to 60 million viewers worldwide with his program Sharia and Life. In 2009, he stated that the Holocaust was “Divine punishment” for the Jews. He openly advocates for the killing of apostates. The Daily Telegraph reports that in his book The Lawful and Prohibited in Islam Qardawi, insists that it is permissible for a husband to beat his wife as a last resort. Qaradawi has also repeatedly stated that homosexuality is a crime punishable by death. He has been refused travel to the West because he has openly advocated for terror against Israeli citizens as well as Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan. During the height of the Iraq War, Al Jazeera was obviously the primary distributor of anti-American sentiment in the region bringing untold harm to our forces and mysteriously they also often became a conduit for the release of many Al Qaeda videos."
AJ is substantially funded by Qatar, which is arabic is spelled "b-i-g-o-i-l"
If you search "al-jeezera muslim brotherhood" on google you learn a lot. Try it.
It's hilarious to watch buffoons like Hoo just stick their heads in the sand and change the subject over the implications of Gore's deal with CurrentTV. Nobody is as gullible as those determined to be played the fool.Delete
What are the implications in your opinion? Terrorists descending into American living rooms through TV cables? Foreign companies taking over the TVs?
I don't have cable TV at home, so I am a bit behind the times.
Al-Jazeera bought existing contracts with cable companies that carry Current. Current's existing market share is on par with the weather cam on top of the local Hilton, but I'm sure Al-Jazeera looks to expand its franchise among the enlightened Progressive audience segment.ReplyDelete
I'm personally looking forward to reviews of Sharia and Life hosted by the estimable cleric, Sheik Qaradawi, who told his audience that “We have the ‘children bomb,’ and these human bombs must continue until liberation.” (NYT, 1/17/2007) Or even another special series on "How to Beat Your Wife" (i.e., "Beating is permitted [to the man] in the most limited of cases, and only in a case when the wife rebels against her husband…", Sharia and Life, 10/5/97)
You have to admit, it would be more enteratining than reruns of the old Benny Hill shows on BBC.
The acquisition should also fit right in with the President's redefined mission for NASA to, in the words of its Administrator, "[...] reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering." Perhaps they'll host a special on how to do emergency clitorectomies with a flint knife or wire a cellphone to trigger an improvised explosive device in a schoolyard.
Al Gore, my hero: always moving the ball Forward.
On the up side, this explains how Dr. Egnor got proficient in the moron language. Reading American Thinker provides an excellent opportunity to practice moron.ReplyDelete
Any reply to the points I made about Seidman's advocacy of federal crimes?
And what other term (besides "moron") would you suggest I use for your assertion that such straight-forward advocacy of criminal acts was merely expression of an unorthodox view?
I have replied in the other thread. Your use of the moron language makes it difficult to understand what you are trying to say. Please consider switching back to English.
Your reply was moronic. Along the lines of "To advocate murder is not to advocate a crime, because cranberries are delicious."Delete
You made no coherent argument. The factual assertions you managed to type are untrue on their face.
If you do not understand simple logic that is not necessarily my fault. It could be the result of reading American Thinker. Recent studies show that this sort of mental abuse can measurably lower one's IQ.
Egnor, the entity to which you are replying appears to fail Turing's Test. Joe Weizenbaum had a better algorithm in 1967. Whatever it is, it's not the latest technology.Delete
You are insulting Dr. Egnor's intelligence. Surely he can distinguish a bot from a human!
On second thought, reading American Thinker on a regular basis may have reduced his analytical abilities, so you may have a point.
See what I mean? My theory is it's a keyword trigger with scripts. Like ELIZA, but more primitive.Delete
The only problem is that algorithms use logic. Sort of rules that out.
It must be a materialist scientist.
What's a "materialist scientist?"Delete
You, for example.Delete
The use of an ostensive definition is an indication of a diminished mental capacity. Look what American Thinker does to your brain!
(Rest assured, your mind is totally safe somewhere out there!)
Actually, I committed the intensional fallacy, which is the basis for Fodor's critique of Darwinism, which uses the intensional fallacy.Delete
'Selection for' in Darwinian theory is indeterminate, because of the free-rider problem.
My answer "you, for example" is as stupid as the inference to natural selection to explain a trait.
You appear to be floundering, Dr. Egnor. Let me graciously extend a helping hand.ReplyDelete
A "materialist scientist" is a scientist who thinks that science can be conducted without appeal to God.
A materialist scientist is a scientist who invokes sub-rational assertions that nature, understood as as matter in motion, is the ultimate reality.Delete
Perhaps I've misunderestimated you. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I don't think that "nature is matter in motion."
If I did it would be a rather silly notion.
What is nature?Delete
Does anything exist that is not a part of nature?
You are jumping all over the place. You were trying to define a "materialist scientist" and failed. You rejected my very reasonable definition in favor of a kludge that caricatures nature as "matter in motion." (That is a rather silly picture as it omits such important parts of nature as spacetime, which is emphatically not matter and motion is defined in spacetime, so spacetme is external to motion.) Now you are bogged down in an attempt to define nature.
Allow me to point out that you do not need to define nature in order to define what a "materialist scientist" is. My definition does it. I am sure that this is what you meant. Why don't you agree with that definition or take it as a starting point and improve it?
Oh, I know why. Because you are an American thinker and American thinkers don't need no advice from "materialist scientists."Delete