Bloggers respond to the bombings in Amman, Jordan, yesterday; they also discuss a Senate hearing on oil prices and wonder whether Texas has inadvertently banned marriage altogether.
Jihad in Jordan: Three attackers, two of whom were suicide bombers, killed 56 people and wounded almost 100 in three hotels across Amman yesterday. Most of the victims were Jordanians, and many were wedding guests. Al-Qaida in Iraq, which is led by Jordanian-born Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, claimed responsibility.
Bloggers are full of condemnation. Live It, Enjoy It's Sa'ad Mohammed Jowhar Rabia, a filmmaker in Dubai, instructs the bombers: "1. DO NOT FUCKING BLOW UP MUSLIM ARABS. 2. DO NOT FUCKING BLOW UP AMERICAN PLACES IN THE ARAB WORLD. Apparently these American places are managed also by Muslim Arabs. 3. If you want to fucking do Jihad, then do it in an Islamic way. You go to battle Fields to do so, not hide like shit fucks in houses and just bomb any moving creature you see!" An American Christian on Blogs4God who has visited Jordan writes, "I also mourn on a larger scale. It wasn't just the sights of history and Biblical archeology that have me longing to take my family back to visit the Hashemite Kingdom – it was the people themselves." Power Line's conservative John Hinderaker posts a picture from one of the attacked weddings and writes, "[T]he fact is that this mass murder, like all the others committed by al Qaeda and like-minded groups, has everything to do with Islam. It is up to sane Muslims everywhere to reclaim their religion from the sadists and fanatics."
Middle Eastern studies professor Juan Cole ties the attack to the U.S. war in Iraq. "Ironically, King Abdullah II tried to tell Dick Cheney in spring of 2002 that this sort of thing would happen," he points out, linking to a 2002 post in which he noted that Abdullah II objected to the Iraq war because it could spill over to neighboring countries.
Patridiot Watch's liberal Poppy hopes that people in Jordan and across the Middle East are "turning their backs on al Queda" and takes some comfort in that fact that Al-Jazeera is reporting that Jordanian demonstrators chanted "Burn in hell, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi!" Jawa Report's conservative Howie is also encouraged by the demonstrators: "Moslems even those who sympathize with the cause or the root cause can no longer deny the pure evil of the Al-Qaeda doctrine. Even Palestine whom Al-Qaeda claims to be helping finds itself today a victim of the terrorists who kill in a cowardly random fashion. Coupled with protests in Morocco last week it is now apparent that the war on terror will be won." And, in a post titled "Winning the war on terror: Jordan," at Meat-Eating Leftist, Bob Riven eschews words in favor of photos that show the destruction in Amman.
Greasing the wheels: Senators called on oil company executives to justify the industry's massive earnings during a hearing yesterday. "Most consumers find (the prices) terribly unfair," said Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D. "Talk is cheap."
Some bloggers feel vindicated. The Reverse Peephole's Micah concludes, "Of course, the oil execs tried to justify themselves in Senate hearings with some supply-and-demand psycho-babble. Basically what it came down to was 'we had to raise prices to absurd levels to quell demand so that supply would go up and our filling stations would have enough gas for people to buy.' What a convenient philosophy." Liberal Matt Boggs of AhWoo's 'GoG-bLoG' scrutinizes ExxonMobil. He insists that "Republican energy policy has amounted to a series of massive handouts to the oil industry. Even now, with Republicans grandstanding with show hearings on television, they refused to make the oil executives testify under oath."
Others defend the free market. Fun Murphys' Kevin Murphy insists that the Senate doesn't understand economics: "So what do higher prices and higher profits tell us, hopefully including the oil companies. To the oil companies, it says produce more oill!!! That's what it says. And while it's telling the companies that, its actually giving them the money to do it with. Wow." David Hogberg, of anti-big-government CRC-Greenwatch Blog, claims in a post titled "We Made Money. We're Sorry" that the hearing was "disturbing" because "[I]t was GOP Senators (i.e., those who are supposed to be in favor of free markets) who were leading the charge." And Café Hayek's Russell Roberts, an economics professor, expresses strong skepticism of a potential windfall profits tax that oil companies may face.
Read more about the oil hearings.
Was marriage jilted?: Texas voted to ban gay marriage Tuesday. But some bloggers are pointing out that the vaguely worded law may have done away with all marriage.
On Mother Jones' blog MoJo, left-leaning Jonathan Stein links to the bill, which states, "(a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. (b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage." Stein asks, "Is it egg-heady coastal elitism to point out that Texas just defined marriage and then made it illegal for everybody, even heteros?" Balloon Juice's conservative John Cole explains his disillusionment with Republicans' "sanctity of marriage" rhetoric and writes, "I would be tickled, well, pink, if it turns out this ban on gay marriage unintentionally banned ALL marriages, as some are suggesting. I don't know if it will or not, but it sure would be fun to watch if it does." Positive Liberty's Jason Kuznicki, a legally married homosexual, argues, "Texas may yet recognize same-sex civil unions, as these are 1. by definition not 'marriage' and 2. arguably not 'similar' enough to trigger a ban: Given that the essential quality of marriage is now defined as heterosexuality, one may easily argue that civil unions are entirely unlike marriages."
Read more about Texas' marriage ban.
Got a question, comment, or suggestion? E-mail email@example.com.