Late Night Laugh: Redecorating Hazards

The Arab Conspiracy Theorists: The Saudi Royal Family Is Jewish And Al Qaeda Is A Jewish Organization

From the You Just Can’t Make This Up Department.

From Saud House:

In the year 851 A.H. a group of men from AL MASALEEKH CLAN, which was a branch of ANZA Tribe, formed a caravan for buying cereals (wheat and corn) and other food stuff from IRAQ, and transporting it back to NAJD. The head of that group was a man called SAHMI BIN HATHLOOL. The caravan reached BASRA, where the members of the group went to a cereal merchant who was a Jew, Called MORDAKHAI BIN IBRAHIM BIN MOSHE’. During their bargaining with that merchant, the Jew asked them : “Where are you from?” They answered: “From ANZA TRIBE; a clan of AL MASALEEKH.” Upon hearing that name, the Jew started to hug so affectionately each one of them saying that he, himself, was also from the clan of AL MASALEEKH, but he had come to reside in BASRA (IRAQ) in consequence to a family feud between his father and some members of ANZA Tribe.

After he recounted to them his fabricated narrative, he ordered his servants to load all the camels of the clan’s members with wheat, dates and tamman; a remarkable deed so generous that astonished the MASALEEKH men and aroused their pride to find such an affectionate (cousin) in IRAQ- the source of their sustenance; they believed each word he said , and , because he was a rich merchant of the food commodities which they were badly in need, they liked him (even though he was a Jew concealed under the garb of an Arab from AL MASALEEKH clan)…

In order to fulfill his ambitious scheme, he started to approach the desert Arab Bedouins for support of his position, them gradually, he declared himself as their king!

At that juncture, AJAMAN Tribe together with BANU KHALED Tribe became fully aware of that Jewish cunning plan after they had verified his true identity, and decided to put an end to him. They attacked his town and conquered it, but before arresting him he had escaped by the skin of his teeth.

That Jewish Ancestor of the SAUDI FAMILY, (MORDAKHAI), sought shelter in a farm called at that time AL-MALIBEED-GHUSAIBA near AL-ARID, which is called at our present time : AL-RIYADH.

He requested the owner of that farm to grant him an asylum. The farmer was so hospitable that he immediately gave him sanctuary. But that Jew (MORDAKHAI), no longer than a month had he stayed there, when he assassinated the land lord and all members of his family, pretending that all were killed by an invading band of thieves. Then he pretended that he had bought that real estate from them before that catastrophe happened to them! Accordingly, he had the right to reside there as a land lord. He then gave a new name to that place: He named it AL-DIRIYA – the same name as that he had lost.

That Jewish Ancestor of the SAUDI FAMILY (MORDAKHAI), was quick to establish a “GUEST HOUSE” called “MADAFFA” on the land he usurped from his victims, and gathered around him a group of hypocrites who started to spread out false propaganda for him that he was a prominent Arab Sheikh. He plotted against Sheikh SALEH SALMAN ABDULLA AL TAMIMI, his original enemy, and caused his assassination in the mosque of the town called (AL-ZALAFI).

After that, he felt satisfied and safe to make (AL-DIRIYA) his permanent home. There he practiced polygamy at a wide scale, and indeed, he begot a lot of children whom he gave pure Arab names…

In the 1960′s the “SAWT AL ARAB” Broadcasting Station in Cairo, Egypt, and the YEMEN Broadcasting Station in SANA’A confirmed the Jewish Ancestry of the SAUDI Family.

King FAISAL AL-SAUD at that time could not deny his family’s kindred with the JEWS when he declared to the WASHINGTON POST on Sept. 17, 1969 stating: “WE, THE SAUDI FAMILY, are cousins of the Jews: we entirely disagree with any Arab or Muslem Authority which shows any antagonism to the Jews; but we must live together with them in peace. Our country (ARABIA) is the Fountain head from where the first Jew sprang, and his descendants spread out all over the world.” That was the declaration of KING FAISAL AL-SAUD BIN ABDUL AZIZ!!!!!

Read the whole insane story here.

More Whack Jobbery, from Pakistan Daily: Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda, Jewish

Al Queda may be a Jewish organization and Osama bin Laden may be Jewish. These are the two points I will try to make in this essay. This is not an attempt to foist blame on the Jews, to victimize them or scapegoat them, something that has occurred throughout history. It is not intended to be an attack on Jews or an exercise in anti-Semitism. It is however, intended to raise questions.

If indeed my contention is correct, that bin Laden is Jewish and al Queda is a Jewish organization, then it is also true that some conclusions can be drawn about Jews in general and about the religion, the ideology, and the social structure of Judaism vis-à-vis or from the perspective of non-Jews, especially about world Jewry as an organized social and political phenomenon which revolves around the modern-day nation-state of Israel, a country physically situated in the Middle East. It also says something about a social milieu that would allow such a phenomenon to occur within Judaism and world Jewry, again from a non-Jewish perspective. This is by no means intended to be all-inclusive. It is intended to equip non-Jews and Jews with a realistic perspective on the realm of the possible as well as provide a convincing argument that much of what is possible here in fact exists. This will no doubt be read, interpreted, and analyzed by Jews and non-Jews alike. Thus, what may prove to be a persuasive argument to some may well also fail to resonate entirely with others. Nor is this simply an exercise in rhetoric. I have written this piece to attempt to provide insight into the social ills of our present time. Caveat lector. The reader beware…

this al Queda is a Jewish organization created and operated by Jews loyal to Israel. This al Queda recruits, tempts, engenders hatred in, and then uses Arab Muslims. It engenders and then manipulates and channels this hatred in young Arab Muslim males and then directs it against targets of its own choosing in the form of violence. It uses religion –Wahhabi Islam, an aberrant form of Islam rejected by 90% of the Muslim world, to accomplish this end. Clarke argues that Wahhabi Islam was begun by Arab Jews and has been nourished, fostered, and promoted by the house of Saud since the 1700′s.

… the Sauds are actually Jews living in Saudi Arabia under complete secrecy and under the cover of being nominally and outwardly Arab. Although it might sound like a contradiction in terms, Clarke also suggests that Osama bin Laden is a Saudi Arabian Jew. So is Saudi Prince Turki Al-Faisal, the former head of Saudi Intelligence, Saudi Prince Bandar, the Saudi Ambassador to the United States, and Bandar’s father, the Saudi Minister of Defense…

… this “al Chai da” could possibly be the Israeli Mossad’s answer to anti-Israeli Arab terrorism. Instead of running away from or fighting Arab terrorism…

For more stupidity, read the whole thing.

Why Capitalism is Good for the Soul

Nobody planned the global capitalist system, nobody runs it, and nobody really comprehends it. This particularly offends intellectuals, for capitalism renders them redundant. It gets on perfectly well without them. It does not need them to make it run, to coordinate it, or to redesign it. The intellectual critics of capitalism believe they know what is good for us, but millions of people interacting in the marketplace keep rebuffing them. This, ultimately, is why they believe capitalism is ‘bad for the soul’: it fulfils human needs without first seeking their moral approval.

From Policy:

…The problem for those of us who believe that capitalism offers the best chance we have for leading meaningful and worthwhile lives is that in this debate, the devil has always had the best tunes to play. Capitalism lacks romantic appeal. It does not set the pulse racing in the way that opposing ideologies like socialism, fascism, or environmentalism can. It does not stir the blood, for it identifies no dragons to slay. It offers no grand vision for the future, for in an open market system the future is shaped not by the imposition of utopian blueprints, but by billions of individuals pursuing their own preferences. Capitalism can justifiably boast that it is excellent at delivering the goods, but this fails to impress in countries like Australia that have come to take affluence for granted.

It is quite the opposite with socialism. Where capitalism delivers but cannot inspire, socialism inspires despite never having delivered. Socialism’s history is littered with repeated failures and with human misery on a massive scale, yet it still attracts smiles rather than curses from people who never had to live under it.(2) Affluent young Australians who would never dream of patronising an Adolf Hitler bierkeller decked out in swastikas are nevertheless happy to hang out in the Lenin Bar at Sydney’s Circular Quay, sipping chilled vodka cocktails under hammer and sickle flags, indifferent to the twenty million victims of the Soviet regime. Chic westerners are still sporting Che Guevara t-shirts, forty years after the man’s death, and flocking to the cinema to see him on a motor bike, apparently oblivious to their handsome hero’s legacy of firing squads and labour camps.(3)

Environmentalism, too, has the happy knack of inspiring the young and firing the imagination of idealists. This is because the radical green movement shares many features with old-style revolutionary socialism. Both are oppositional, defining themselves as alternatives to the existing capitalist system. Both are moralistic, seeking to purify humanity of its tawdry materialism and selfishness, and appealing to our ‘higher instincts.’ Both are apocalyptic, claiming to be able to read the future and warning, like Old Testament prophets, of looming catastrophe if we do not change our ways. And both are utopian, holding out the promise of redemption through a new social order based on a more enlightened humanity. All of this is irresistibly appealing
to romantics.

Both socialism and environmentalism also share an unshakeable belief in their own infallibility, which further ramps up their attractiveness. Both dismiss their opponents as either ignorant (‘falsely conscious’) or in bad faith, and they are both reluctant to allow counter-arguments, evidence, or logic to deflect them from the urgent pursuit of their proffered solutions. Although they both ground their claims in ‘science,’ their appeal is as much emotional as rational, and both take themselves so seriously that they lose any sense of irony. Rockstars fly around the world in private jets to perform at sellout stadium concerts demanding action on global warming, and indignant youths coordinate anti-globalisation protests using global communication networks.

Boring capitalism cannot hope to compete with all this moral certainty, self-righteous anger, and sheer bloody excitement. Where is the adrenalin in getting up every day, earning a living, raising a family, creating a home, and saving for the future? Where is the moral crusade in buying and selling, borrowing and lending, producing and consuming? The Encyclopædia Britannica describes ‘soul music’ as ‘characterised by intensity of feeling and earthiness.’ It is in this sense that capitalism is soulless, for although it fills people’s bellies, it struggles to engage their emotions…

We have known since the time of Adam Smith that capitalism harnesses self-interest to generate outcomes that benefit others. This is obvious in the relationship between producers and consumers, for profits generally flow to those who anticipate what other people want and then deliver it at the least cost. But it also holds in the relationship between employers and employees. One of Karl Marx’s most mischievous legacies was to suggest that this relationship is inherently antagonistic: that for employers to make profit, they must drive wages down. In reality, workers in the advanced capitalist countries thrive when their companies increase profits. The pursuit of profit thus results in higher living standards for workers, as well as cheaper and more plentiful goods and services for consumers.

The way this has enhanced people’s capacity to lead a good life can be seen in the spectacular reduction in levels of global poverty, brought about by the spread of capitalism on a world scale. In 1820, 85% of the world’s population lived on today’s equivalent of less than a dollar per day. By 1950, this proportion had fallen to 50%. Today it is down to 20%. World poverty has fallen more in the last fifty years than it did in the previous five hundred.(11) This dramatic reduction in human misery and despair owes nothing to aging rockstars demanding that we ‘make poverty history.’ It is due to the spread of global capitalism.

Capitalism has also made it possible for many more people to live on Earth and to survive for longer than ever before. In 1900, the average life expectancy in the ‘less developed countries’ was just thirty years. By 1960, this had risen to forty-six years. By 1998, it was sixty-five years. To put this extraordinary achievement into perspective, the average life expectancy in the poorest countries at the end of the twentieth century was fifteen years longer than the average life expectancy in the richest country in the world—Britain—at the start of that century…

No socioeconomic system can guarantee people a good life. All we can reasonably ask of any society is the conditions that will enable us to construct happy and worthwhile lives for ourselves. On this test, capitalism passes with flying colours…

We now know that Marx was spectacularly wrong. Working people today do not just earn a good wage; they own comfortable homes, have shares in the companies that employ them, go to university, win entry to the professions, set up businesses, and run for high office. The western ‘working class’ (to the extent that such a thing still exists) has been so busy expanding its horizons that it has quite forgotten about its historic mission of overthrowing capitalism…

Nobody planned the global capitalist system, nobody runs it, and nobody really comprehends it. This particularly offends intellectuals, for capitalism renders them redundant. It gets on perfectly well without them. It does not need them to make it run, to coordinate it, or to redesign it. The intellectual critics of capitalism believe they know what is good for us, but millions of people interacting in the marketplace keep rebuffing them. This, ultimately, is why they believe capitalism is ‘bad for the soul’: it fulfils human needs without first seeking their moral approval.

Read it all:

Fighting Forced Marriages In The UK: A Jab, Not A Punch

“We would have a requirement that the spouse must a basic knowledge of English before they came to the UK.

Yeah, that will send a strong message.

From The BBC:

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith outlines the measures to combat forced marriages

The rules for people bringing in spouses to the UK from overseas are to change – in an attempt to tackle forced marriages.

The age limit will be raised from 18 to 21 and the foreign spouse will have to sign an agreement saying they will learn English before coming to the UK.

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith says forced marriage is “a terrible thing”.

UK citizens who are going to marry foreigners will also need to register their intention before leaving the UK.

This will mean a young person will know in advance that a marriage will take place overseas and who their prospective partner will be.

Language checks

The UK Border Agency will get a new power to revoke people’s right to stay in the country if they are deemed to have abused the marriage visa system.

Agency staff will also be given guidance to help them spot any risk of abuse and spot those who might be vulnerable to being forced into a marriage .

And the agency will check that spouses from overseas who signed up to an agreement to learn English are fulfilling their promise. If they are not, their leave could be cancelled.

Ms Smith said: “Forced marriage leads to victims suffering years of physical and mental abuse and – in extreme cases – unlawful imprisonment and rape.

“It has no place in our society. The government is determined to do everything it can to stamp it out and to ensure that victims receive the help and support they need.

“That is why we are raising the age limit for visas, checking anyone entering into a marriage does so of their own free will and demanding that those coming to the UK learn English.”

Shadow home secretary Dominic Grieve said the government was following the Conservative lead on the issue of raising the minimum age for foreign spouses to 21 and pre-registration for young women going abroad to be married.

He said: “Whilst we welcome the fact the government has adopted 80% of our policies, we are concerned about their proposal to ‘ask’ people to enter into an ‘agreement’ to learn English.

“We would have a requirement that the spouse must a basic knowledge of English before they came to the UK.

“It would be unfair and impractical to allow someone to come here on the promise that they will learn English and then remove them if they can’t.”

They Can’t Give It Away Fast Enough: The Ford Foundation Is Still Funding Anti Israel/Jewish Hate Groups

Seven years after an anti-racism conference in Durban devolved into an Israel hate-fest by groups backed by the Ford Foundation, the influential philanthropy is still funding groups that engage in the ‘Durban strategy’ to portray Israel as a racist state worthy of boycotts, divestment and sanctions.

From JTA:

By Michael J Jordan:

NEW YORK (JTA) — In August 2001, Israel became a punching bag for several thousand human rights activists from throughout the world who were gathered for a U.N anti-racism conference in Durban, South Africa.

But while the Jewish state may have been the target, the Ford Foundation also ultimately suffered a serious black eye after it emerged that many of the anti-Israel activists in Durban were egged on by Ford-backed, pro-Palestinian groups.

Hoping to head off a similar debacle, Ford says it will not pay for any organization to participate in the first follow-up conference to Durban, slated for April in Geneva.

This announcement comes nearly five years after Ford, America’s second-largest philanthropic institution, adopted what experts describe as the most stringent guidelines on grantees.

Yet despite such steps and the foundation’s public criticisms of what transpired seven years ago, Ford today is funding several organizations that engage in the “Durban strategy” — a two-pronged tactic launched at the ‘01 conference to paint Israel as a “racist, apartheid” state and isolate the Jewish nation through boycotts, divestment and sanctions.

The Ford slice of funds to anti-Israel nongovernmental organizations may pale compared to that provided by Europe and its myriad governmental agencies. But the Ford funding enables the groups to wage low-key, diplomatic and economic warfare against Israel, dragging the Palestinian conflict from the battlefield into international forums, media, the Internet and college campuses.

These revelations are the result of a months-long JTA investigation into Ford funding after the highly influential foundation revised its guidelines under pressure from the U.S. Congress.

The pressure followed an October 2003 JTA expose, “Funding Hate”, which found that Ford funneled millions of dollars to pro-Palestinian NGOs, enabling them to promote their vitriolic agenda against Israel in Durban. The NGO Forum, which accompanied the official gathering of countries, issued a lengthy document, including passages containing some of the most provocative attacks on Israel ever produced under the umbrella of the United Nations.

Despite the revised guidelines, Ford appears unable — or unwilling — to prevent some of its grantees from lending support to the movement that was launched in Durban.

The new JTA investigation, which examined a large cross-section of Ford grantees that speak out on the Middle East conflict, finds that several signed a major 2005 boycott and divestment petition against “Apartheid Israel.”

Signatories agreed they were “inspired by the struggle of South Africans against apartheid, and in the spirit of international solidarity, moral consistency and resistance to injustice and oppression.”

As Ford was announcing its decision not to support the 2009 anti-racism forum, its Web site touted a 2008-09 grant for $305,000 to the Arab NGO Network for Development, which features a map on its Web site that fails to note the existence of Israel. One of the two Palestinian members on its coordination committee is the pro-boycott Palestinian NGO Network, or PNGO, a key organizer at Durban.

Although PNGO is no longer receiving grants from Ford, which has assets above $13 billion and gives away more than $500 million annually, the network works closely with at least three Ford grantee organizations.

Ford does not support groups that solely advocate boycotts, but signing onto a boycott or divestment effort is not itself a deal breaker for foundation funding, according to Ford’s vice president of communications, Marta Tellado.

Tellado said there are no concrete red lines.

“We don’t have a glossary of terms that are not allowed,” she said. “It’s not about the specific use of a word, but we look at the totality of that organization, if their activities as a whole still reflect our values and mission.”

Tellado said the foundation never supported the anti-apartheid movement against South Africa, but it recognizes that “historically, boycott is seen as a legitimate, nonviolent means of expression.”

”We don’t think the idea of a boycott can be generalized to mean it’s aimed at the destruction of a country,” Tellado said. “But we understand that it’s a flashpoint” in the conflict today.

Ford says it monitors its grantees, but would not provide any details of the groups it has cut off or how many.

With preparations under way for the follow-up U.N. World Conference Against Racism in Geneva, there are strong indications that Israel again will be singled out for opprobrium.

Tellado said the Ford Foundation, which was endowed with funds donated by Henry and Edsel Ford but no longer maintains any ties to the Ford Motor Co., wants no part of it.

“Experience totally informs our decision,” she said. “This reflects our concern for the meeting’s ability to be constructive.”

This and other steps — like severing relations with several zealous NGOs — garner Ford praise from even its toughest critics.

After JTA revealed the Ford-Durban link in 2003, Ford issued its new guidelines for grantees.

Experts say the revisions were the most extensive seen in philanthropic circles. They elicited howls of free-speech infringement from the American Civil Liberties Union and a slew of top U.S. universities.

Under the guidelines, Ford grantees must agree not to “carry on propaganda” or “promote or engage in violence, terrorism, bigotry or the destruction of any State, nor will it make subgrants to any entity that engages in these activities.”

Although no Ford grantee was linked to terrorism per se, some appeared to condone violence and terror. Ford has since stopped directly funding those groups.

Yet JTA has uncovered several grantees that engage in the twin “Israel is apartheid” and “boycott and divest” campaigns.

“That is the essence of the Durban strategy: demonize and delegitimize Israel to the degree that it gains no external support and eventually is unable to function,” said Gerald Steinberg, the executive director of the Jerusalem-based NGO Monitor.

Read it all.

Another Reason Academia Reviles The Administration: The Demand For Accountability

From The Chronicle Review:

Who is Sara Martinez Tucker?

Hers is not a household name, and it is not likely to become one. Ms. Tucker was appointed in late 2006 as the Under Secretary for postsecondary education in the U.S. Department of Education. She is holding the tiller of the department’s higher education programs at a time when her ship (the Bush administration) is sinking under the waves. Not that I feel sorry for her. The message she delivered at the Chicago conference held last Friday to commemorate the second anniversary of the report of the Spellings Commission on the Future of Higher Education was the message that President Bush and Secretary Rice have been delivering for many years to recalcitrant foreign nations: “You know what you have to do.”

But of course Ms. Tucker was only doing what Secretary Margaret Spellings has been doing for the past couple of years, warning institutions of higher education that they need to become more transparent with respect to student educational outcomes. Spellings turned that warning into a threat on Friday, telling the university representatives in her audience that if they did not provide consumers with more and better information on student success rates, Congress will impose heavier burdens on them than they can now impose upon themselves. “I suspect that [Congress’s] solutions will likely not be as informed or sophisticated as what you would propose.” Perhaps. But Spellings has no enforcement mechanism, and these threats strike me as even weaker than those employed by her boss against the Axis of Evil.

I think we are almost certain to have a heavily Democratic Congress starting in 2009, and thus far there is no indication that the Democratic congressional leaders of relevant committees share the Republican preoccupation with truth in educational consumerism. Ironically, perhaps, the Democrats seem more prone to the traditional market solution — let the consumers decide. Caveat emptor is not my favorite legal notion, and I think it would have been good for the Bush administration to have found ways to let consumers know what they were getting into with subprime mortgages. But I think that in fact consumers of educational services have much better means of informing themselves about what they are likely to get in selecting colleges than borrowers did in the mortgage market.

What has most struck me in discussions of the Spellings Commissions over the past couple of years is the mere fact that we have a federal Department of Education. This country was always opposed to having a ministry of education, just as it continues to be opposed to having a ministry of culture. Many readers will not recall it, but in fact the department is one of the newest, founded only in 1980. There is of course no federal constitutional right to education (it is a constitutional right in each of the states), and the feds are involved only because of the huge amounts of student aid and other funds they provide. The Department has a $68.6-billion budget this year, but essentially no direct control over higher education policy. Its Web page says that its mission is “to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.” But in fact the Department has no effective way to implement those goals. And thank goodness for that.

I am a firm supporter of accountability in higher education. I do not think many higher-education institutions take accountability seriously enough but I doubt that the federal government will impose strict accountability upon us. I do think, however, that we in higher education, especially those of us in the private sector, should take the burden upon ourselves. Complaining about Spellings does not make us accountable.

Obama And Europe: A Love That Fades

Right now, Europeans are greeting Barack Obama as their savior. But how long will the love last if he wins the presidency?

…He is neither saint nor softie, but the most consummate power politician to come out of Chicago since Richard Daley the Elder. Following classical electoral ritual in the U.S., Obama has been moving steadily to the right, be it on the death penalty, gun control, or Iraq. Europeans haven’t quite processed his pilgrimage to the center, and if they have, they seem not to care.

From The New Republic:

This author, a so-called expert on Europe and trans-Atlantic relations, has had more hits from big-time U.S. media in the last five days than in the last five years: Newsweek, CNN, NPR, Lehrer, Reuters, even Al-Jazeera English. They all wanted me to explain Germany’s Obama fervor, of course, particularly as it related to his speech in the heart of Berlin, at the “Victory Column” that celebrates the military triumphs that launched Bismarck’s Prussia-Germany on the road to Continental primacy.

The site selection is a nice touch for a man who is regarded throughout Germany as the Prince of Peace, as the polar opposite of the one-man axis of evil that George W. Bush is said to be. But what Barack Obama really is or isn’t does not matter. Obamania is not about politics, but about desire, dreams, and projections. Obama is not so much a candidate as a canvas, a vast surface onto which Europeans (and half of the U.S. electorate) can paint their fondest fantasies. There hasn’t been anything like it in Western politics since … since … Jack (“Ich bin ein Berliner”) Kennedy, the president Barack Obama so self-consciously mimics, down to the tilt of his head and the inflection of his voice.

If he ran in Germany, Obama would carry the country by a landslide, with 67 percent of the vote. But there is no gold in them thar numbers, only disappointment. By vast margins, Germans and Europeans believe in Obama as the Savior & Redeemer who will deliver them from the last eight yeas of George W. It’s like an exorcist fantasy: Once we can send Bush off into the desert, like the scapegoat of the Israelites, we will be able to love America again.

There are two problems buried in this fantasy. One, Barack Obama is possessed of a pliable identity that oscillates between Barry and Barack, between White and Black, between the Harvard Law Review and the Chicago slums, between a leftish voting record in the Senate and a right-of-center message on the stump. He is neither saint nor softie, but the most consummate power politician to come out of Chicago since Richard Daley the Elder. Following classical electoral ritual in the U.S., Obama has been moving steadily to the right, be it on the death penalty, gun control, or Iraq. Europeans haven’t quite processed his pilgrimage to the center, and if they have, they seem not to care.

“He is a universal icon,” gushes Ijoma Mangold, a commentator for Munich’s Süddeutsche Zeitung, the country’s largest quality daily. Obama’s “greatest talent,” he says, “is to have turned his person into a grand narrative many would like to make their own.”

The Washington correspondent of another major left-of-center publication puts it in more practical terms: “Obama recognizes the limits of American power and influence. … The weight of the White House (in world affairs) is waning. … In this multipolar world not all the roads will lead through Washington.” For the new president (and there is no doubt in Europe that it will be Obama), this means “more cooperation, more UN, NATO, and EU.”

This, of course, is Europe’s favorite dream: a post-Bush America cut down to size and chastened, a meeker and more modest America, a more “European” (that is, a more social-democratic) America, which at last casts off some of its nastier capitalist habits. An America that is a lot more like us Europeans who have forgone power politics and sovereignty in favor of communitarian politics and integration.

This is the canvas Europeans have been painting with wildly enthusiastic brush strokes. If Obama wins, the reality will be different. Sure, President Obama would speak more softly than did Mr. Bush in his first term, but he would still be carrying the biggest stick on earth. He will preside over an America that is still No. 1 and not part of a multipolar chorus populated by Russia, China, India, and the E.U.

Germans should have read the foreign-policy chapter in Obama’s The Audacity of Hope. There are passages in there which read like pure Bush–on unilateralist action, on the right of pre-emption, on playing the world’s “sheriff.” Obama’s upshot: “This will not change–nor should it.” This doesn’t mean more Bushism if Obama is elected. But it is a useful reminder that the U.S. plays in a league of its own–with global interest, with global military means, and with the willingness to use them.

In Berlin, hundreds of thousands will cheer a projection rather than a flesh-and-blood Obama on Thursday. After Inauguration Day, alas, Europe and the world will not face a Dreamworks president, but the leader of a superpower. Whether McCain or Obama, the 44th president will speak more nicely than did W. in his first term. He will also pay more attention to the “decent opinions of mankind.” But he will still preside over the world’s largest military, economic, and cultural power.

This vast power differential is what Germans and Europeans don’t quite fathom in their infatuation with Obama. Their problem was not Mr. Bush, but Mr. Big–America as Behemoth Among the Nations, unwilling to succumb to the dictates of goodness that animate post-heroic, post-imperial, and post-sovereign Europe.

Josef Joffe is publisher-editor of the German weekly Die Zeit, as well as a fellow of the Institute for International Studies and the Hoover Institution, both at Stanford.

Breaking- Obama Hotel Evacuated, Possible Bomb Threat

Sky News:

A suspicious package has been discovered at the hotel where US presidential candidate Barack Obama is staying in Berlin.

The Hotel Adlon was evacuated while bomb experts checked the package but it was unclear whether Obama was in the building at the time of the alert.

Barack Obama arrived in Berlin today for what is being billed as the centre-piece speech of his eight-stop Middle East and European tour.

Between 10,000 and one million people are expected to turn out to hear him talk about how US foreign policy would look under an Obama government.

UPDATED: There was a brief security scare when police found a suspicious package at the Hotel Adlon, where Obama is staying, but it turned out to contain nothing but a book.

“Denmark protects its cartoonists. We arrest them” Why Islam Is Unfunny for a Cartoonist

The arrest of a controversial Dutch cartoonist has set off a wave of protests. The case is raising questions for a changing Europe about free speech, religion and art.

From The Wall Street Journal:

The arrest of a controversial Dutch cartoonist has set off a wave of protests. The case is raising questions for a changing Europe about free speech, religion and art.

On a sunny May morning, six plainclothes police officers, two uniformed policemen and a trio of functionaries from the state prosecutor’s office closed in on a small apartment in Amsterdam. Their quarry: a skinny Dutch cartoonist with a rude sense of humor. Informed that he was suspected of sketching offensive drawings of Muslims and other minorities, the Dutchman surrendered without a struggle.

“I never expected the Spanish Inquisition,” recalls the cartoonist, who goes by the nom de plume Gregorius Nekschot, quoting the British comedy team Monty Python. A fan of ribald gags, he’s a caustic foe of religion, particularly Islam. The Quran, crucifixion, sexual organs and goats are among his favorite motifs.

Mr. Nekschot, whose cartoons had appeared mainly on his own Web site, spent the night in a jail cell. Police grabbed his computer, a hard drive and sketch pads. He’s been summoned for further questioning later this month by prosecutors. He hasn’t been charged with a crime, but the prosecutor’s office says he’s been under investigation for three years on suspicion that he violated a Dutch law that forbids discrimination on the basis of race, religion or sexual orientation.

The cartoon affair has come as a shock to a country that sees itself as a bastion of tolerance, a tradition forged by grim memories of bloody conflict between Catholics and Protestants. The Netherlands sheltered Jews and other refugees from the Spanish Inquisition, and Calvinists fleeing persecution in France. Its thinkers helped nurture the 18th-century Enlightenment. Prostitutes, marijuana and pornography have been legal for decades.

“This is serious. It is about freedom of speech,” says Mark Rutte, the leader of a center-right opposition party. Some of Mr. Nekschot’s oeuvre is “really disgusting,” he says, “but that is free speech.”

The saga has turned the previously obscure artist into a national celebrity. His predicament reprises, with a curious twist, a drama that debuted in Denmark just over two years ago. Then, Danish cartoonists published a series of cartoons of the prophet Muhammad in the nation’s Jyllands-Posten newspaper. The drawings set off a tempest of often violent protests across the Muslim world and a fierce debate in Europe about how to balance secular and sacred values. One of the Danish cartoonists fled his house and went into hiding late last year after the state security service uncovered a murder plot against him. (The elderly artist is now back at home, guarded by police.) Last month, a suicide bomber killed six in an attack on the Danish Embassy in Pakistan.

The Dutch scenario involves similar issues but has followed a very different script. This time the state has stepped in to rein in the artist, rather than protect him, and it is secular champions of free speech who are angry. They haven’t resorted to violence but have stirred up a political storm. Parliament held an emergency debate on the affair and cartoonists have bombarded the Dutch Justice Ministry with a blizzard of faxed protest caricatures.

“Denmark protects its cartoonists. We arrest them,” says Geert Wilders, a populist member of the Dutch Parliament famous for his dyed-blond bouffant hairdo and incendiary denunciations of the Quran as an Islamic version of Hitler’s “Mein Kampf.” The arrested cartoonist, says Mr. Wilders, is “a bit obsessed” with Muslims and sex, but “it is not bad for artists to have a little obsession.”
How to handle Muslim sensitivities is one of Europe’s most prickly issues. Islam is Europe’s fastest-growing religion, with immigrants from Muslim lands often rejecting a drift toward secularism in what used to be known as Christendom. About 6% of Holland’s 16.3 million people are Muslims, and nearly half of Amsterdam’s population is of foreign origin. Some predict the city could have a Muslim majority within a decade or so.

The contrasting Danish and Dutch responses “show that there is a serious struggle of ideas going on for the future of Europe,” says Flemming Rose, a Danish newspaper editor who commissioned the drawings of Muhammad in Jyllands-Posten. At stake, he says, is whether democracy protects the right to offend or embraces religious taboos so that “citizens have a right not to be offended.”

In Britain, a local police force got caught up recently in a flap over its use of a German shepherd puppy to promote an emergency hotline. A Muslim councilor, noting that dogs are viewed as unclean in Islam, complained that the puppy could turn off believers. The police force apologized and regretted not consulting its diversity officer.

In Switzerland, meanwhile, a bombastic anti-immigration political party is campaigning to ban all Muslim prayer towers, known as minarets. This week it gathered enough signatures to force a national referendum on the issue. The Swiss government says such a ban would violate freedom of religion and pose a security threat by provoking Muslims.

Afshin Ellian, an Iranian-born history of law professor at Holland’s Leiden University, says he fled Tehran to escape religious taboos and now worries that Europe is “importing problems from the Middle East.” He understands why Muslims, Christians and other devout believers might take offense at certain cartoons, paintings or texts, but he calls it “a matter of aesthetics not criminal law.”

The inquiry into Mr. Nekschot’s case is being led by an Amsterdam prosecutor unit that specializes in combating neo-Nazis and other hate-mongers. The cartoonist denies any links to fascist or other extremist groups. He says he loathes all ideologies and all religions as recipes for tyranny.

Mr. Nekschot, who calls the investigation “surreal,” says, “Not even Monty Python could have come up with this.” (His pen name, Gregorius Nekschot, is a mocking tribute to Gregory IX, a 13th-century pope who set up a Vatican department to hunt down and execute heretics. Nekschot means “shot in the neck” in Dutch.) Some Muslim groups have voiced dismay at his arrest as well. The head of an organization of Moroccan preachers in Holland said authorities seemed “more afraid” of offending Islam than Muslims.

“We are led by the law,” says Franklin Wattimena, a spokesman for the Amsterdam Public Prosecutor’s Office. He denies any attempt to squelch free speech and says locking Mr. Nekschot up overnight was probably a “mistake.”

If formally charged and taken to court, Mr. Nekschot risks up to two years in prison and a maximum fine of €16,750, or about $26,430, says his Amsterdam lawyer, Max Vermeij. He thinks the odds on his client being prosecuted are better than even but draws some comfort from recent Dutch court rulings in discrimination cases that mostly came down on the side of free speech.

Mr. Nekschot himself is very worried. “I’m afraid of getting a judge who doesn’t have a sense of humor,” he says.

He’s also worried that his identity will get exposed if he goes to court. This, says the cartoonist, could make him a target for attack like Theo van Gogh, a polemical filmmaker and foul-mouthed celebrity murdered by an Islamic extremist in November 2004. Mr. Van Gogh was a fan of Mr. Nekschot’s work and posted his drawings on his own Web site, The Happy Smoker.

Justice Minister Hirsch Ballin, when grilled about the cartoon affair in Parliament, promised to protect Mr. Nekshot’s anonymity so as “to guarantee the suspect’s safety.” (The Wall Street Journal also agreed not to publish Mr. Nekschot’s real name.)

But the minister, a devout Christian, added fuel to a mounting political furor by revealing the existence of a previously secret bureaucratic body, called the Interdepartmental Working Group on Cartoons. Officials later explained that the cartoon group had no censorship duties and had been set up after the 2006 Danish cartoon crisis to alert Dutch officials to any risks the Netherlands might face. The group examined Mr. Nekschot’s work, say officials, but played no part in his arrest. Headed by a senior bureaucrat from a national agency coordinating counterterrorism, it draws from the intelligence service, the interior minister, the prosecutor’s office and various other government bodies.

Until his brush with the law, Mr. Nekschot was barely known outside a narrow circle of Internet-savvy aficionados. Newspapers shunned his caricatures. “They all said ‘no way,’ ” he recalls. “They thought I was too offensive, too explicit and too strong on sensitive issues like religion.” He set up his own Web site, at http://www.gregoriusnekschot.nl/blog, in 2003 to break the blockade. He published two books, “Sick Jokes” in 2006 and “Sick Jokes 2″ earlier this year, but sales languished. A big book distributor refused to touch them.

Today, he’s a cult phenomenon. Hits on his Web site went from a few thousand a day to over 100,000 a day when news of his arrest broke, he says. Newspapers that wanted nothing to do with him now print his work. He’s been interviewed on television — with his face hidden — and his work is currently on display in the Parliament building, where Mr. Rutte, the politician, has set up a “free-thinkers space.” Other exhibits include poems by Mr. Van Gogh, the murdered filmmaker, and abstract paintings of seminaked women that were banished from a town hall in central Holland after complaints from Christians and Muslims.

Guessing Mr. Nekschot’s true identity has become a media parlor game — to the chagrin of one prominent cartoonist who was named in print, wrongly, as the mystery man. The case has also stirred much speculation in the media and Parliament about why an apparently dormant investigation first launched in 2005 suddenly became so urgent that Mr. Nekschot had to be snatched from his home without warning. The prosecutor’s office says it simply took a long time to figure out Mr. Nekschot’s true identity and then find him.

Others say the timing of his arrest suggests an attempt by authorities to soothe Muslims angry over the March release on the Internet of “Fitna,” a short film by Mr. Wilders, the Dutch legislator. The film, which denounces “hateful verses from the Quran,” infuriated many Muslims and also Dutch leaders, who had urged that it not be released.

Officials deny any connection. The prosecutor’s office notes that it has also taken action against Muslims suspected of discrimination. A Moroccan-born Dutchman was recently convicted of discrimination for writing in a blog that homosexuals should be tossed from rooftops and thrown down stairs. A court ordered him to do community-service work.

Mr. Nekschot makes no apologies for causing offense. “Harmless humor does not exist,” he says. “I like strong stuff.”

But, eager to stay out of prison, he’s pruned his Web site of eight cartoons that prosecutors say are the focus of their investigation. Deleted were cartoons of a Muslim at the North Pole engaging in deviant sex, and of a black youth waving two pistols at a left-wing do-gooder wearing a peace sign.

Among the cartoons that survived his cut is a drawing of Mr. Van Gogh’s jailed killer naked on his prison bed. It shows him leering salaciously at a copy of the Quran and lamenting that the holy book doesn’t have any pictures.

The cartoonist blames his woes on what he calls Holland’s “political correctness industry,” a network of often state-funded organizations set up to protect Muslims and other minority groups. One of these, an Internet monitoring group known as MDI, says it received dozens of complaints about the cartoonist’s mockery of Islam and first reported him to the prosecutor’s office in 2005.

“We’re not sure what he does is illegal, but there is a possibility that it is not legal,” says the group’s head, Niels van Tamelen. Many of the complaints, he says, came from followers of a controversial Muslim convert called Abdul-Jabbar van de Ven.

Mr. Van de Ven caused an uproar after the 2004 murder of Mr. Van Gogh, when he seemed to welcome the killing on national TV. He said Mr. Wilders, the anti-immigrant legislator, also deserved to die, preferably from cancer. Mr. Nekschot, appalled by the outburst, caricatured the convert as a fatwa-spewing fanatic.

Mr. Van de Ven says he’s glad to see Mr. Nekschot in trouble. The cartoonist deserves prosecution, he says, for “disgusting cartoons about our beloved prophet Muhammad, may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him.” Politicians who cry about free speech, he says, “shouldn’t stick their noses into judicial matters.”

Mr. Nekschot says everyone is entitled to their opinions. “If people say my cartoons are disgusting that is fine by me. I see lots of things I don’t like. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.