(More America Bashing)
It seems to me that some people living here in the US just can’t stand playing for a winning team. I don’t know if the psychosis is genetic or environmental (heavy on the “mental”) in origin, but no matter how much success they enjoy personally and regardless of what the US actually accomplishes on the world stage, they just can’t resist the urge to run around publicly wringing their hands and apologizing for the US being the benevolent world superpower that we are.
With this concept in mind, I present to you this morning Ms. Indra Nooyi.
Ms. Nooyi is the President and Chief Financial Officer for Pepsico, maker of Pepsi Cola and zillions of other consumer food products.
Ms. Nooyi is a native of India, but as they used to say on Saturday Night Live, “America have been belly belly good to her” as evidenced by her Master’s Degree in Public and Private management from the Yale School of Management. She also serves on the Yale Board of Directors.
Looking at her credentials, this woman is way above average academically, as evidenced by the undergrad degrees in chemistry, physics, and math, as well as Masters in Finance and Marketing earned in India before immigrating to the US to attend Yale. A really sharp cookie…
So what would make someone with all of this obvious intelligence deliver the kind of speech that Ms. Nooyi delivered this week at the graduation ceremonies for Columbia University MBA’s? Here is part of what she said…
“This evening, graduates, I want to share a few thoughts about a topic that should be near and dear to your hearts: the world of global business. But, I’m going to present this topic in a way that you probably haven’t considered before. I’m going to take a look at how The United States is often perceived in global business, what causes this perception, and what we can do about it. To help me, I’m going to make use of a model.
To begin, I’d like you to consider your hand. That’s right…your hand.
Other than the fact that mine desperately need a manicure, it’s a pretty typical hand…
As I grew up and started to study geography, I remember being told that the five fingers can be thought of as the five major continents: Europe, Asia, Africa, and North and South America. Now, let me issue a profound apology to both Australia and Antarctica. I bear neither of these continents any ill will. It’s just that we humans have only five fingers on each hand, so my analogy doesn’t work with seven continents.
Clearly, the point of my story is more important than geographical accuracy!
First, let’s consider our little finger. Think of this finger as Africa. Africa is the little finger not because of Africa’s size, but because of its place on the world’s stage. From an economic standpoint, Africa has yet to catch up with here sister continents. And yet, when our little finger hurts, it affect the whole hand.
Our thumb is Asia: strong, powerful, and ready to assert herself as a major player on the world’s economic stage.
Our index, or pointer finger, is Europe. Europe is the cradle of democracy and pointed the way for Western civilization and the laws we use in conducting global business.
The ring finger is South America, including Latin America. Is this appropriate, or what? The ring finger symbolizes love and commitment to another person. Both Latin and South America are hot, passionate, and filled with the sensuous beats of the mambo, samba, and tango: three dances that—if done right—can almost guarantee you and your partner will be buying furniture together.
This analogy of the five fingers as the five major continents leaves the long, middle finger for North America, and , in particular, The United States. As the longest of the fingers, it really stands out. The middle finger anchors every function that the had performs and is the key to all of the fingers working together efficiently and effectively. This is a really good thing, and has given the U.S. a leg-up in global business since the end of World War I.
However, if used inappropriately—just like the U.S. itself—the middle finger can convey a negative message and get us in trouble. You know what I’m talking about. In fact, I suspect you’re hoping that I’ll demonstrate what I mean. And trust me, I’m not looking for volunteers to model.
Discretion being the better part of valor…I think I’ll pass.
What is most crucial to my analogy of the five fingers as the five major continents, is that each of us in the U.S.—the long middle finger—must be careful that when we extend our arm in either a business or political sense, we take pains to assure we are giving a hand…not the finger. Sometimes this is very difficult. Because the U.S.—the middle finger—sticks out so much, we send the wrong message unintentionally.
Unfortunately, I think this is how the rest of the world looks at the U.S. right now. Not as part of the hand—giving strength and purpose to the rest of the fingers—but, instead, scratching our nose and sending a far different signal”
Can you imagine having spent $100,000 and two years working on an MBA, having your parents and friends travel to your university to attend graduation, and being bashed over the head for being an “ugly American” by a prosperous foreigner living safely within the borders of OUR country?
WHAT TOTAL CRAP. Ms. Nooyi is certainly entitled to her opinions, but her message is COMPLETELY OUT OF PLACE at a college graduation ceremony.
Pepsico at first refused to release the transcript of the speech, but finally relented this week at the request of Powerline Blog. Ms. Nooyi has also issued a PR Statement on the Pepsico Web Site trying to backtrack from and qualify her position.
I have a suggestion for Ms. Nooyi:
I suggest, if it really concerns her about the way that America is perceived by Europe and the rest of the world, that she pack her belonging, go outside, stand beside the nearest highway, extend the thumb on her right hand vertically, and hitch-hike her sorry Indian butt back to the Asian continent where she belongs.
That should solve her problem quite efficiently...
Saturday, May 21, 2005
Friday, May 20, 2005
One Less Thing To Worry About--Part II
I don't eat that many hot dogs, but it has always puzzled me why the number of dogs never matched the number of buns that you buy in a package.
Well, that's not supposed to be a problem any longer as some bun manufacturers have agreed to start putting eight buns in a pack to match the one pound eight-packs of weiners.
I know I'll sleep better tonight--why can't the issue of appointing federal judges be solved equally easily? After all, we know that the Senate is nothing but a bunch of big old weiners...
Well, that's not supposed to be a problem any longer as some bun manufacturers have agreed to start putting eight buns in a pack to match the one pound eight-packs of weiners.
I know I'll sleep better tonight--why can't the issue of appointing federal judges be solved equally easily? After all, we know that the Senate is nothing but a bunch of big old weiners...
Liar Liar Pants on Fire
"We cannot allow a minority" of the senators "to grab the Senate by the throat and hold it there."
Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield (D-MT)-1975
OK, it’s time for me to wade in on the Senate filibuster issue and the so-called "nuclear option."
I’ve kept my mouth pretty much closed and my keyboard directed toward other issues until now because I didn’t have much to add, but after spending a good deal of time researching the issue I feel competent to wade in and tell you what you need to know (that is, assuming that you already haven’t made up your mind on a partisan basis.)
I’ll start out by cutting to the chase…ever heard of a play by a guy named Shakespheare called “Much Ado About Nothing?” Can you guess where this discussion is going?
Ok, now that we are on the same page, let’s look at some details.
My first reference for your review is to point out what is said about the Senate in the US Constitution:
Article I, Section 5, Clause 2:
Each House [meaning the House of Representatives and the Senate] may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.”
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2:
[The president] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
So Article I, Section 5, Clause 2 says that the Senate may “determine the Rules of its Proceedings.” In my opinion, this makes the rest of the arguments against the “nuclear option” moot, but I’ll humor everybody on both sides of the political spectrum by offering additional information.
Also notice that Article II, Section 2, Cause 2 specifically requires Advice and Consent of the Senate by two-thirds concurrence on Treaties, but that it does not make the two-thirds requirement on “Judges of the supreme Court and all other Officers of the United States…”
On a historical note (as opposed to the hysterical note utilized by the media, the Republicans, and the Democrats,) the Senate does not actually have a 200+ year history (it varies between 200 and 214 years, depending on whether you watch CNN or FOX News) of having rules regarding the filibuster. According to the US Senate Website, the filibuster tactic only saw limited unofficial use in the early 1800’s, and ending debate by “cloture” only become an “official rule” in 1917 (Senate Rule 22). By the way, the original Rule 22 required 67 votes to end debate, but it was changed by …guess who?
The Democrats, that’s who…
“In 1975 the Senators changed the filibuster requirement from 67 votes to 60, after concluding that it only takes a simple majority of Senators to change the rules governing their proceedings. As Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield (D-MT) said at the time: "We cannot allow a minority" of the senators "to grab the Senate by the throat and hold it there." Senators Leahy, Kennedy, Byrd, and Biden, all agreed. Nearly a decade ago, Lloyd Cutler, the former White House Counsel to Presidents Carter and Clinton, concluded that the Senate Rule requiring a super-majority vote to change the rule is "plainly unconstitutional."
Before the current Senate argument and media uproar, a proposal to end ALL filibusters on all Senate business was “introduced in 1995 by senior Democrats, including Sens. Lieberman and Tom Harkin (D., Iowa). When it came to a vote, 19 Democrats, including leading blue-state senators such as Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, supported the measure."
That measure failed because even the Democrats realized that it was wrong. But changing the rules is still a possibility today, and IT IS A LEGAL ALTERNATIVE.
If changed, the appointment of judges will not be the only issues in which filibusters are forbidden:
“Rules guaranteeing up-or-down majority votes and abolishing the filibuster in various contexts are commonplace in modern Congresses as well. In fact, there are at least 26 laws on the books today abrogating the filibuster. For example:
You cannot filibuster a federal budget resolution (Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974).
You cannot filibuster a resolution authorizing the use of force (War Powers Resolution).
You cannot filibuster international trade agreements (Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority Act of 2002).
And as the minority leader, Sen. Harry Reid (D., Nev.), well knows, you cannot filibuster legislation under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.”
In spite of all the screeching heard from Democrats and Republicans in the media and by media “talking heads,” I say that this story to date has been portrayed in an intellectually dishonest manner. The fact is that the Republican party can leglly change the Senate rules to end Democratic filibusters of President Bush's judicial appointments. They have to be prepared to deal with the consequences if and when the Democrats regain a majority in the Senate.
It is also clear that either a) the media is horribly uninformed or misinformed about the issue or, b) the media is doing their normal biased protrayal of the issue to support their own adgenda.
Rather than tendering partisan sound bites and fanning the flames, wouldn’t it be nice if your newspapers and TV news shows did what I just did and actually explained this issue to you in detail?
Don't you agree that when it is all said and done, what we have here is…
MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING.
Next question?
Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield (D-MT)-1975
OK, it’s time for me to wade in on the Senate filibuster issue and the so-called "nuclear option."
I’ve kept my mouth pretty much closed and my keyboard directed toward other issues until now because I didn’t have much to add, but after spending a good deal of time researching the issue I feel competent to wade in and tell you what you need to know (that is, assuming that you already haven’t made up your mind on a partisan basis.)
I’ll start out by cutting to the chase…ever heard of a play by a guy named Shakespheare called “Much Ado About Nothing?” Can you guess where this discussion is going?
Ok, now that we are on the same page, let’s look at some details.
My first reference for your review is to point out what is said about the Senate in the US Constitution:
Article I, Section 5, Clause 2:
Each House [meaning the House of Representatives and the Senate] may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.”
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2:
[The president] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
So Article I, Section 5, Clause 2 says that the Senate may “determine the Rules of its Proceedings.” In my opinion, this makes the rest of the arguments against the “nuclear option” moot, but I’ll humor everybody on both sides of the political spectrum by offering additional information.
Also notice that Article II, Section 2, Cause 2 specifically requires Advice and Consent of the Senate by two-thirds concurrence on Treaties, but that it does not make the two-thirds requirement on “Judges of the supreme Court and all other Officers of the United States…”
On a historical note (as opposed to the hysterical note utilized by the media, the Republicans, and the Democrats,) the Senate does not actually have a 200+ year history (it varies between 200 and 214 years, depending on whether you watch CNN or FOX News) of having rules regarding the filibuster. According to the US Senate Website, the filibuster tactic only saw limited unofficial use in the early 1800’s, and ending debate by “cloture” only become an “official rule” in 1917 (Senate Rule 22). By the way, the original Rule 22 required 67 votes to end debate, but it was changed by …guess who?
The Democrats, that’s who…
“In 1975 the Senators changed the filibuster requirement from 67 votes to 60, after concluding that it only takes a simple majority of Senators to change the rules governing their proceedings. As Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield (D-MT) said at the time: "We cannot allow a minority" of the senators "to grab the Senate by the throat and hold it there." Senators Leahy, Kennedy, Byrd, and Biden, all agreed. Nearly a decade ago, Lloyd Cutler, the former White House Counsel to Presidents Carter and Clinton, concluded that the Senate Rule requiring a super-majority vote to change the rule is "plainly unconstitutional."
Before the current Senate argument and media uproar, a proposal to end ALL filibusters on all Senate business was “introduced in 1995 by senior Democrats, including Sens. Lieberman and Tom Harkin (D., Iowa). When it came to a vote, 19 Democrats, including leading blue-state senators such as Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, supported the measure."
That measure failed because even the Democrats realized that it was wrong. But changing the rules is still a possibility today, and IT IS A LEGAL ALTERNATIVE.
If changed, the appointment of judges will not be the only issues in which filibusters are forbidden:
“Rules guaranteeing up-or-down majority votes and abolishing the filibuster in various contexts are commonplace in modern Congresses as well. In fact, there are at least 26 laws on the books today abrogating the filibuster. For example:
You cannot filibuster a federal budget resolution (Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974).
You cannot filibuster a resolution authorizing the use of force (War Powers Resolution).
You cannot filibuster international trade agreements (Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority Act of 2002).
And as the minority leader, Sen. Harry Reid (D., Nev.), well knows, you cannot filibuster legislation under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.”
In spite of all the screeching heard from Democrats and Republicans in the media and by media “talking heads,” I say that this story to date has been portrayed in an intellectually dishonest manner. The fact is that the Republican party can leglly change the Senate rules to end Democratic filibusters of President Bush's judicial appointments. They have to be prepared to deal with the consequences if and when the Democrats regain a majority in the Senate.
It is also clear that either a) the media is horribly uninformed or misinformed about the issue or, b) the media is doing their normal biased protrayal of the issue to support their own adgenda.
Rather than tendering partisan sound bites and fanning the flames, wouldn’t it be nice if your newspapers and TV news shows did what I just did and actually explained this issue to you in detail?
Don't you agree that when it is all said and done, what we have here is…
MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING.
Next question?
Bordering Insanity
I just walked back into the room this morning while FOX News was broadcasting a story about people bitching about the new rules requiring US citizens to use a Passport to exit and re-enter Canada. The change will also affect travel to Mexico and the Caribbean that historically only required a birth certificate and a driver’s license or other form of picture ID. Been there and done that myself without a passport, but…
Canadian officials are telling us that the US is going to lose a bunch of money as a result of the change. The leftists and other bleeding hearts are lamenting the injustice of requiring something as simple as POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION to enter and exit our country.
And of course their reason is the $97 COST of a passport….
OH THE HUMANITY.
I have a message for all of the detractors of our border security efforts:
A. If you are already inside our borders and don’t like the new rules—get the hell out. YES YOU…YOU there, grumbling under your breath. Swim to Cuba, ski to Canada, flee to Mexico, surrender to France, or goose-step off to Germany and apply for residency there, because we don’t want and need your stupid asses here any way.
B. If you are on the outside of our borders and want in, but you don’t want to supply documentation to get a passport and visa—stay the hell out of my country.
It’s just that simple.
Canadian officials are telling us that the US is going to lose a bunch of money as a result of the change. The leftists and other bleeding hearts are lamenting the injustice of requiring something as simple as POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION to enter and exit our country.
And of course their reason is the $97 COST of a passport….
OH THE HUMANITY.
I have a message for all of the detractors of our border security efforts:
A. If you are already inside our borders and don’t like the new rules—get the hell out. YES YOU…YOU there, grumbling under your breath. Swim to Cuba, ski to Canada, flee to Mexico, surrender to France, or goose-step off to Germany and apply for residency there, because we don’t want and need your stupid asses here any way.
B. If you are on the outside of our borders and want in, but you don’t want to supply documentation to get a passport and visa—stay the hell out of my country.
It’s just that simple.
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
Baby Birds
A pair of Cardinals have built a nest downstairs under our kitchen window over the past few weeks. Our 84 year old neighbor, Mr. Harland "Bucky" Strader, acts like a proud grandpa since they now have two chicks.
Here's a couple of pictures of the grandchildren:
Here's a couple of pictures of the grandchildren:
Outrage and Silence
I read the New York Times online almost every day. I particularly gravitate to the Op Ed pages to see what insanity their columnists and readers are spewing at the moment. Sometimes I can barely get through the first paragraph of a given story without cringing, and other times I just skip it entirely after reading the headline, particularly any writing by Paul Krugman.
“It is hard not to notice two contrasting stories that have run side by side during the past week. One is the story about the violent protests in the Muslim world triggered by a report in Newsweek (which the magazine has now retracted) that U.S. interrogators at Guantánamo Bay desecrated a Koran by throwing it into a toilet. In Afghanistan alone, at least 16 people were killed and more than 100 wounded in anti-American rioting that has been linked to that report. I certainly hope that Newsweek story is incorrect, because it would be outrageous if U.S. interrogators behaved that way.
That said, though, in the same newspapers one can read the latest reports from Iraq, where Baathist and jihadist suicide bombers have killed 400 Iraqi Muslims in the past month - most of them Shiite and Kurdish civilians shopping in markets, walking in funerals, going to mosques or volunteering to join the police.
Yet these mass murders - this desecration and dismemberment of real Muslims by other Muslims - have not prompted a single protest march anywhere in the Muslim world. And I have not read of a single fatwa issued by any Muslim cleric outside Iraq condemning these indiscriminate mass murders of Iraqi Shiites and Kurds by these jihadist suicide bombers, many of whom, according to a Washington Post report, are coming from Saudi Arabia.”
I was thinking the same thing myself—where is the outrage in the Muslim world that could and should be directed at the “insurgents” and Jihadists? The Afghanis want to riot in front of TV cameras and maim and kill each other over unproven rumors that a couple of Koran’s might have been flushed down the toilet, but stand silent while Saudi suicide bombers drive into markets and police stations.
Echoing this sentiment, Irshad Manji wrote an Op Ed piece in the Los Angeles Times titled Being a Muslim himself, Irshad shed some interesting light on the same issue…
“So Newsweek has retracted its report about the defiling of Islam's holy book, the Koran, by interrogators at Guantanamo Bay.
But it's too late. Muslims everywhere are questioning America's respect for all religions. Journalists are wondering what standards allowed the charge to be printed without proof. Foreign policy analysts are asking how the riots incited by the charge will affect the war on terrorism. Still, at least one more question needs to be asked: Even if the Koran was mistreated, are violent riots justified?
"What do you expect?" my critics will declare. "Abusing the Koran is like abusing basic human rights. If you're a good Muslim, your identity and dignity are bound up in revering the Koran. It's the literal word of God. Unsullied. Untouched. Unedited. Unlike the other holy books."
Sorry. That argument just doesn't wash. One can appreciate the Koran's inherent worth, as I do, while recognizing that it contains ambiguities, inconsistencies, outright contradictions — and the possibility of human editing. This is not simply a reform-minded Muslim speaking. This is Islamic tradition talking.
For centuries, philosophers of Islam have been telling the story of the "Satanic Verses." The Prophet Muhammad accepted them as authentic entries into the Koran. Later, he realized they deify heathen idols rather than God. So he belatedly rejected the verses, blaming them on a trick played by Satan. Which implies that the Prophet edited the Koran.
Moreover, they collected the Koran's verses from sundry surfaces such as bones, stones and bark. How did the passages get there? According to Islamic lore, the Prophet, an illiterate trader, couldn't personally record them. His companions served as scribes, often writing from memory. Given so much human involvement, isn't it possible that errors infiltrated the "authoritative" Koran?
In asking this question, I'm neither impugning the allegorical wisdom of the Koran nor inviting another fatwa on my life. I'm saying that Muslims have to get comfortable asking such questions — and not merely whispering them — if we're going to avoid a further desecration of human life. Riots in Afghanistan have already resulted in at least 14 deaths. Aid workers have been attacked; their offices burned. How does this benefit the cause of dignity — for anyone?
Many will insist that I'm undermining the dignity of Muslims by challenging a pillar of their identity. By urging my fellow Muslims to consider these questions, I'm showing faith in their capacity to be thoughtful and humane. I'm appealing to their heads rather than only their hearts. Ultimately, I'm fighting not Islam but the routinely low expectations of those who practice it.”
Mr. Manji makes a point that I hadn’t heard made publicly before, that many Muslims, like some fundamentalist Christians here in the US, actually believe that the Koran is the literal word of their God and should not be touched by non-believers.
This is so typical of a society and religion that relinquished their lead in science, technology, art, philosophy, and politicts nearly 2000 years ago. Their culture today is steeped in a rich history of racism, bigotry toward other Muslims (Kurds, Shiites, Sunnis, etc.) and repression of women, yet they want the US and other western countries to respect these same minorities that they kill and maim with impunity.
What a self-serving double standard.
Another thing that I’ve heard no one mention in all of the Newsweek “Korangate” uproar is this—who gave the Guantanamo detainees the Korans in the first place?
THE US SOLDIERS, THAT’S WHO.
(As a footnote, I’ve decided to start referring to the “Koran” using the proper English translation, rather than the pseudo politically correct spelling “Quran” as used in the Newsweek article.)
“It is hard not to notice two contrasting stories that have run side by side during the past week. One is the story about the violent protests in the Muslim world triggered by a report in Newsweek (which the magazine has now retracted) that U.S. interrogators at Guantánamo Bay desecrated a Koran by throwing it into a toilet. In Afghanistan alone, at least 16 people were killed and more than 100 wounded in anti-American rioting that has been linked to that report. I certainly hope that Newsweek story is incorrect, because it would be outrageous if U.S. interrogators behaved that way.
That said, though, in the same newspapers one can read the latest reports from Iraq, where Baathist and jihadist suicide bombers have killed 400 Iraqi Muslims in the past month - most of them Shiite and Kurdish civilians shopping in markets, walking in funerals, going to mosques or volunteering to join the police.
Yet these mass murders - this desecration and dismemberment of real Muslims by other Muslims - have not prompted a single protest march anywhere in the Muslim world. And I have not read of a single fatwa issued by any Muslim cleric outside Iraq condemning these indiscriminate mass murders of Iraqi Shiites and Kurds by these jihadist suicide bombers, many of whom, according to a Washington Post report, are coming from Saudi Arabia.”
I was thinking the same thing myself—where is the outrage in the Muslim world that could and should be directed at the “insurgents” and Jihadists? The Afghanis want to riot in front of TV cameras and maim and kill each other over unproven rumors that a couple of Koran’s might have been flushed down the toilet, but stand silent while Saudi suicide bombers drive into markets and police stations.
Echoing this sentiment, Irshad Manji wrote an Op Ed piece in the Los Angeles Times titled Being a Muslim himself, Irshad shed some interesting light on the same issue…
“So Newsweek has retracted its report about the defiling of Islam's holy book, the Koran, by interrogators at Guantanamo Bay.
But it's too late. Muslims everywhere are questioning America's respect for all religions. Journalists are wondering what standards allowed the charge to be printed without proof. Foreign policy analysts are asking how the riots incited by the charge will affect the war on terrorism. Still, at least one more question needs to be asked: Even if the Koran was mistreated, are violent riots justified?
"What do you expect?" my critics will declare. "Abusing the Koran is like abusing basic human rights. If you're a good Muslim, your identity and dignity are bound up in revering the Koran. It's the literal word of God. Unsullied. Untouched. Unedited. Unlike the other holy books."
Sorry. That argument just doesn't wash. One can appreciate the Koran's inherent worth, as I do, while recognizing that it contains ambiguities, inconsistencies, outright contradictions — and the possibility of human editing. This is not simply a reform-minded Muslim speaking. This is Islamic tradition talking.
For centuries, philosophers of Islam have been telling the story of the "Satanic Verses." The Prophet Muhammad accepted them as authentic entries into the Koran. Later, he realized they deify heathen idols rather than God. So he belatedly rejected the verses, blaming them on a trick played by Satan. Which implies that the Prophet edited the Koran.
Moreover, they collected the Koran's verses from sundry surfaces such as bones, stones and bark. How did the passages get there? According to Islamic lore, the Prophet, an illiterate trader, couldn't personally record them. His companions served as scribes, often writing from memory. Given so much human involvement, isn't it possible that errors infiltrated the "authoritative" Koran?
In asking this question, I'm neither impugning the allegorical wisdom of the Koran nor inviting another fatwa on my life. I'm saying that Muslims have to get comfortable asking such questions — and not merely whispering them — if we're going to avoid a further desecration of human life. Riots in Afghanistan have already resulted in at least 14 deaths. Aid workers have been attacked; their offices burned. How does this benefit the cause of dignity — for anyone?
Many will insist that I'm undermining the dignity of Muslims by challenging a pillar of their identity. By urging my fellow Muslims to consider these questions, I'm showing faith in their capacity to be thoughtful and humane. I'm appealing to their heads rather than only their hearts. Ultimately, I'm fighting not Islam but the routinely low expectations of those who practice it.”
Mr. Manji makes a point that I hadn’t heard made publicly before, that many Muslims, like some fundamentalist Christians here in the US, actually believe that the Koran is the literal word of their God and should not be touched by non-believers.
This is so typical of a society and religion that relinquished their lead in science, technology, art, philosophy, and politicts nearly 2000 years ago. Their culture today is steeped in a rich history of racism, bigotry toward other Muslims (Kurds, Shiites, Sunnis, etc.) and repression of women, yet they want the US and other western countries to respect these same minorities that they kill and maim with impunity.
What a self-serving double standard.
Another thing that I’ve heard no one mention in all of the Newsweek “Korangate” uproar is this—who gave the Guantanamo detainees the Korans in the first place?
THE US SOLDIERS, THAT’S WHO.
(As a footnote, I’ve decided to start referring to the “Koran” using the proper English translation, rather than the pseudo politically correct spelling “Quran” as used in the Newsweek article.)
Monday, May 16, 2005
I'm Really Tired Of This Crap--Part II
"But...we swear it’s true—we just can’t prove it…really...it is..."
After I wrote I’m Really Tired Of This Crap early this morning, we learned during the day that Newsweek was qualifying the apology they issued on the “Qurangate” scandal over allegations that US soldiers were flushing Islamic holy books down the toilet in Cuba.
All day today the people at Newsweek followed the Dan Rather and CBS “journalism model” by continuing to represent their story as probable—claiming that they just didn’t have the sources to back it up. They also tried to continue to cite their “anonymous” sources and ridiculously blame their Pentagon sources for failing to deny the veracity of the background information when given the chance before the article was published.
As I said earlier, it was a lose-lose proposition for the Pentagon to make a snap statement without having the time to look into the matter themselves.
It makes me want to know what kind of a miserable bunch of bumbling idiots and morons work at Newsweek? Did they actually go to college to learn how to do this kind of journalism?
If so, someone’s parents deserve a tuition refund, I think.
Finally, late today, Newsweek issued a belated statement retracting the story entirely. The only problem is, the rest of the world that doesn’t have a free press and media probably still believes that the story is true and that President Bush put pressure on Newsweek to make the retraction.
And of course all of the leftists, conspiracy theorists, and other “barking moonbats” will continue to have their eyes rolled back in their heads while they slobber and drool and spit and sputter about the atrocities committed by the evil US military.
I guaran-damn-tee you that at least a few US soldiers and possibly some additional citizens will be killed or injured as a direct result of Newsweek’s irresponsible journalism in this matter.
I say all the Newsweek readers should cancel their subscription and spend the savings on the lottery.
What do you think?
After I wrote I’m Really Tired Of This Crap early this morning, we learned during the day that Newsweek was qualifying the apology they issued on the “Qurangate” scandal over allegations that US soldiers were flushing Islamic holy books down the toilet in Cuba.
All day today the people at Newsweek followed the Dan Rather and CBS “journalism model” by continuing to represent their story as probable—claiming that they just didn’t have the sources to back it up. They also tried to continue to cite their “anonymous” sources and ridiculously blame their Pentagon sources for failing to deny the veracity of the background information when given the chance before the article was published.
As I said earlier, it was a lose-lose proposition for the Pentagon to make a snap statement without having the time to look into the matter themselves.
It makes me want to know what kind of a miserable bunch of bumbling idiots and morons work at Newsweek? Did they actually go to college to learn how to do this kind of journalism?
If so, someone’s parents deserve a tuition refund, I think.
Finally, late today, Newsweek issued a belated statement retracting the story entirely. The only problem is, the rest of the world that doesn’t have a free press and media probably still believes that the story is true and that President Bush put pressure on Newsweek to make the retraction.
And of course all of the leftists, conspiracy theorists, and other “barking moonbats” will continue to have their eyes rolled back in their heads while they slobber and drool and spit and sputter about the atrocities committed by the evil US military.
I guaran-damn-tee you that at least a few US soldiers and possibly some additional citizens will be killed or injured as a direct result of Newsweek’s irresponsible journalism in this matter.
I say all the Newsweek readers should cancel their subscription and spend the savings on the lottery.
What do you think?
How Stupid Do They Think That We Are?
As I mentioned earlier, I like to think about and talk intelligently about most things involving economics. I only have a very basic college level education in economics, but having owned my own business for over ten years and having been otherwise self- employed for most of the past fifteen years, I pretty well know "what is what" when it comes to the economics of income taxes and other employment taxes.
That’s why my head is spinning around again today, at thirty six hundred revolutions per minute, over this news story about Florida Democratic Representative Robert Wexler’s proposed solution to the “non-existant” Social Security crisis.
"WASHINGTON — Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Delray Beach, is poised to become the first congressional Democrat to offer a Social Security restructuring plan that does not include private investment accounts.
Wexler, whose district has the largest number of Social Security beneficiaries of any House Democrat, said Friday he plans to introduce a bill Tuesday that would impose a 6 percent surtax tax — evenly divided between employers and employees — on income above the current $90,000 threshold for the 12.4 percent payroll tax."
Oh, I'm so relieved...I only have to pay half of the new tax...well that's certainly OK with me and my banker.
See, here is a DEMOCRAT, a card carrying demagogue representing the political party that would have us believe that there is no (immediate) problem with the Social Security System, telling us that he wants to take another 6% from all of those "dirty rich people" that have "won life’s lottery" to pay for the non-existent shortfall in the retirement program for “working families.”
I just want to toss my cookies when I see such examples of brazen “class warfare” like this.
You do realize that not one single person is ever going to receive a level of social security retirement income payments that would justify taxing incomes at the $90K level. Once you reach about the $60K level of annual income, your social security benefits max out so they are already stealing from high level earners to finance other “less fortunate” retirees.
Let me tell you from long hard personal experience, if you earn more than$90,000 each year and you’re not a drug dealer or a prostitute, you deserve every damn penny you get because you are most likely at work more than you are at home and you probably spent more than sixteen years fooling around in government schools and at the local junior college.
And another thing: Does anyone out there actually believe that your employer pays half of your payroll taxes?
This concept is total, unmitigated, Bull Crap! You Got That?
Any cash that your employer pays in the form of “payroll taxes” is cash that your employer doesn’t have to pay you with. Here is how it works:
As an employer, when you decide to hire a new employee, you don’t just look at the “take home pay” you’re going to hand out on payday. Noooo, Sir…Mr. “Mean old Rich Business Owner” has to look at not only the cash the new employee is going to take home to their Mama or their "old Lady" every other Friday afternoon, but they also have to consider the cost of the “7.65% matching payroll taxes” and the other fringe benefits like insurance and paid holidays that go along with creating that new position.
See, it's really easy when I explain it like that. So just in case you didn’t already understand this concept, let me reiterate…
YOU PAY ALL OF THE WITHHOLDING TAX ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. YOU JUST THINK THAT THE EMPLOYER PAYS HALF SINCE IT NEVER MAKES IT ONTO YOUR PAY STUB!
Understand?
That’s why my head is spinning around again today, at thirty six hundred revolutions per minute, over this news story about Florida Democratic Representative Robert Wexler’s proposed solution to the “non-existant” Social Security crisis.
"WASHINGTON — Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Delray Beach, is poised to become the first congressional Democrat to offer a Social Security restructuring plan that does not include private investment accounts.
Wexler, whose district has the largest number of Social Security beneficiaries of any House Democrat, said Friday he plans to introduce a bill Tuesday that would impose a 6 percent surtax tax — evenly divided between employers and employees — on income above the current $90,000 threshold for the 12.4 percent payroll tax."
Oh, I'm so relieved...I only have to pay half of the new tax...well that's certainly OK with me and my banker.
See, here is a DEMOCRAT, a card carrying demagogue representing the political party that would have us believe that there is no (immediate) problem with the Social Security System, telling us that he wants to take another 6% from all of those "dirty rich people" that have "won life’s lottery" to pay for the non-existent shortfall in the retirement program for “working families.”
I just want to toss my cookies when I see such examples of brazen “class warfare” like this.
You do realize that not one single person is ever going to receive a level of social security retirement income payments that would justify taxing incomes at the $90K level. Once you reach about the $60K level of annual income, your social security benefits max out so they are already stealing from high level earners to finance other “less fortunate” retirees.
Let me tell you from long hard personal experience, if you earn more than$90,000 each year and you’re not a drug dealer or a prostitute, you deserve every damn penny you get because you are most likely at work more than you are at home and you probably spent more than sixteen years fooling around in government schools and at the local junior college.
And another thing: Does anyone out there actually believe that your employer pays half of your payroll taxes?
This concept is total, unmitigated, Bull Crap! You Got That?
Any cash that your employer pays in the form of “payroll taxes” is cash that your employer doesn’t have to pay you with. Here is how it works:
As an employer, when you decide to hire a new employee, you don’t just look at the “take home pay” you’re going to hand out on payday. Noooo, Sir…Mr. “Mean old Rich Business Owner” has to look at not only the cash the new employee is going to take home to their Mama or their "old Lady" every other Friday afternoon, but they also have to consider the cost of the “7.65% matching payroll taxes” and the other fringe benefits like insurance and paid holidays that go along with creating that new position.
See, it's really easy when I explain it like that. So just in case you didn’t already understand this concept, let me reiterate…
YOU PAY ALL OF THE WITHHOLDING TAX ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. YOU JUST THINK THAT THE EMPLOYER PAYS HALF SINCE IT NEVER MAKES IT ONTO YOUR PAY STUB!
Understand?
I'm Really Tired Of This Crap
(Breaking Things and Killing People—Part II)
”Newsweek Apologizes For Quran Story Errors” the headline reads today. You can read the entire story for yourself if you like—I think that their apology is pretty half assed, half hearted at best.
“NEW YORK - Newsweek magazine has apologized for errors in a story alleging that interrogators at the U.S. detention center in Guantanamo Bay desecrated the Quran, saying it would re-examine the accusations, which sparked outrage and deadly protests in Afghanistan…
In an issue dated May 9, the magazine reported that U.S. military investigators had found evidence that interrogators placed copies of Islam's holy book in washrooms and had flushed one down the toilet to get inmates to talk.
Whitaker wrote that the magazine's information came from "a knowledgeable U.S. government source," and before it published the item, writers Michael Isikoff and John Barry sought comment from two Defense Department officials. One declined to respond, and the other challenged another part of the story but did not dispute the Quran charge, Whitaker said.”
Once again a “respected” mainstream media publication has used a “knowledgeable” anonymous source to support their own anti-American, anti-military agenda—this time with disastrous results. Sixteen killed and over 100 injured. Who knows how many hundreds or thousands of new “insurgents” have been motivated to attack our citizens and forces overseas.
I say that Newsweek’s apology is insincere and half hearted because they seem to want to point to the silence of the Defense Department officials on the matter as their justification for printing the story in the first place. What complete and total crap. Remember that one of CBS’s excuses for the airing the “Rathergate” story on President Bush’s Texas Air National Guard service was that spokesmen in the White House didn’t deny the veracity of the documents that were the basis of the allegations?
It’s like that old “when did you stop beating your wife” question. If the “officials” had responded in a negative manner, you know that the story would have been printed any way—it would just have included their denial and some words to the effect that the denial should be discounted because everyone knows that the military always lies to cover up their atrocities.
Why do people that have an anti-war agenda always have to resort to vilifying the individual solders? Do they honestly believe that the military is filled with perverts and masochists that have enlisted so that they can legally prosecute their horrible deeds? Or perhaps they believe that our military is capable of taking guys like Opie Taylor and Gomer Pyle and turning them into Hannibal Lecter during eight weeks of boot camp.
I, personally, am insulted by this type of thoughts and allegations. I spent two years in the Navy Reserve while I was at Georgia Tech in the 1970’s and I can tell you that we were never once told that when the going got tough we could act in any manner and do any thing that we pleased. The foundation of our training as potential officers in the Navy was that of discipline and obeying the command structure, as well as respect for the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ.)
Under the UCMJ, you have somewhat fewer “rights” than the average citizen or dumb assed newspaper reporter has, and you are held to a higher standard of behavior. You do not want to screw up under the UCMJ unless you want to find yourself in a stinky metal military brig without TV and gymnasium privileges. Your last concern would be if the guards had placed the bible on top of the toilet in order to insult your religion.
The other thing that I wish that the leftist liberals, the media, and the other peaceniks would understand (but they apparently won’t) is that when you go to war, you are training and paying people to break things and kill people. The side that breaks the most things and kills enough people (but not necessarily the most people) to cause the other side to give up wins the war. History tells us that there has never been a single war fought without some casualties, both civilian and military.
Why do the media always act surprised and outraged at REALITY, yet refuse to accurately report it?
”Newsweek Apologizes For Quran Story Errors” the headline reads today. You can read the entire story for yourself if you like—I think that their apology is pretty half assed, half hearted at best.
“NEW YORK - Newsweek magazine has apologized for errors in a story alleging that interrogators at the U.S. detention center in Guantanamo Bay desecrated the Quran, saying it would re-examine the accusations, which sparked outrage and deadly protests in Afghanistan…
In an issue dated May 9, the magazine reported that U.S. military investigators had found evidence that interrogators placed copies of Islam's holy book in washrooms and had flushed one down the toilet to get inmates to talk.
Whitaker wrote that the magazine's information came from "a knowledgeable U.S. government source," and before it published the item, writers Michael Isikoff and John Barry sought comment from two Defense Department officials. One declined to respond, and the other challenged another part of the story but did not dispute the Quran charge, Whitaker said.”
Once again a “respected” mainstream media publication has used a “knowledgeable” anonymous source to support their own anti-American, anti-military agenda—this time with disastrous results. Sixteen killed and over 100 injured. Who knows how many hundreds or thousands of new “insurgents” have been motivated to attack our citizens and forces overseas.
I say that Newsweek’s apology is insincere and half hearted because they seem to want to point to the silence of the Defense Department officials on the matter as their justification for printing the story in the first place. What complete and total crap. Remember that one of CBS’s excuses for the airing the “Rathergate” story on President Bush’s Texas Air National Guard service was that spokesmen in the White House didn’t deny the veracity of the documents that were the basis of the allegations?
It’s like that old “when did you stop beating your wife” question. If the “officials” had responded in a negative manner, you know that the story would have been printed any way—it would just have included their denial and some words to the effect that the denial should be discounted because everyone knows that the military always lies to cover up their atrocities.
Why do people that have an anti-war agenda always have to resort to vilifying the individual solders? Do they honestly believe that the military is filled with perverts and masochists that have enlisted so that they can legally prosecute their horrible deeds? Or perhaps they believe that our military is capable of taking guys like Opie Taylor and Gomer Pyle and turning them into Hannibal Lecter during eight weeks of boot camp.
I, personally, am insulted by this type of thoughts and allegations. I spent two years in the Navy Reserve while I was at Georgia Tech in the 1970’s and I can tell you that we were never once told that when the going got tough we could act in any manner and do any thing that we pleased. The foundation of our training as potential officers in the Navy was that of discipline and obeying the command structure, as well as respect for the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ.)
Under the UCMJ, you have somewhat fewer “rights” than the average citizen or dumb assed newspaper reporter has, and you are held to a higher standard of behavior. You do not want to screw up under the UCMJ unless you want to find yourself in a stinky metal military brig without TV and gymnasium privileges. Your last concern would be if the guards had placed the bible on top of the toilet in order to insult your religion.
The other thing that I wish that the leftist liberals, the media, and the other peaceniks would understand (but they apparently won’t) is that when you go to war, you are training and paying people to break things and kill people. The side that breaks the most things and kills enough people (but not necessarily the most people) to cause the other side to give up wins the war. History tells us that there has never been a single war fought without some casualties, both civilian and military.
Why do the media always act surprised and outraged at REALITY, yet refuse to accurately report it?
Sunday, May 15, 2005
Sunday Sunrise
Here's what you missed on St. Simons Island this morning about 6:30 AM while you were lounging in bed...
Am I Smart, Or Really Really Dumb?
I only took two economics classes in college—Engineering Economics and Macro Economics. Both classes were required for graduation, but in retrospect I would have taken the classes on my own any way and I regret not taking more classes addressing economics issues.
Unlike many of my classmates, I devoured the textbooks, making A’s in both courses because I realized that the material they were teaching was good stuff—really useable “real world” information. The mathematics required was only basic algebra, but unfortunately the math was the stumbling block for the non-engineering students that were my classmates. That was really sad since most college level students should have mastered algebra concepts in high school (I took algebra in junior high.)
I believe that every US citizen should have to take a couple of economics classes in order to get your voter registration card. If this were the case, we would see a completely different outcome in elections at both a local and national basis. Almost every single issue, from oil prices, healthcare, taxation, retirement, public debt, and international trade, all have economic foundations that form the fundamental basis of what decisions and policies will produce a positive economic result.
Dozens of current news stories lament $50 oil prices and the US dependence on foreign oil, while others predict the impending doom and gloom scenario of the world actually running out of oil in the next one hundred years. I suggest that a basic understanding of economics provides me with insight that allows me to discount the doom and gloom scenarios presented by the hysterical “nay-sayers.”
You do realize that crude oil was virtually worthless until Henry Ford introduced the $1,000 Model T Ford in 1908. Before that time, crude oil was burned for heating and refined into products like kerosene, tars and paraffin for industrial use.
Before the introduction of the automobile, prices on horses, horseshoes, and saddles were the topics of public conversation and consternation. If your town didn’t have a blacksmith, you had to take the time to ride your horse to where the blacksmith was, thereby increasing the real cost of operating your vehicle (the horse.) If your town grew rapidly and the number of horses increased, your local blacksmith invariably raised the price of a set of horse shoes no matter what your mayor or congressman said or did.
Since that time, the worldwide explosion of automobiles burning gasoline, trucks burning diesel fuel, and aircraft burning kerosene, all produced from crude oil, has caused demand to meet or exceed supply. The present prices are exactly where the supply/demand equations taught in my economics class predicted they should be. The prices have virtually nothing directly to do with our government, other the slight added cost of taxes imposed at the state and federal level. That, and the regulatory influence that government has over new refinery capacity.
As compared to European gas prices, our US prices are still a bargain because of our refinery capacity and the relatively low levels of taxation as compared to European taxation. Imagine the outcry if our prices that of these foreign countries as of March 2005.
Unlike many of my classmates, I devoured the textbooks, making A’s in both courses because I realized that the material they were teaching was good stuff—really useable “real world” information. The mathematics required was only basic algebra, but unfortunately the math was the stumbling block for the non-engineering students that were my classmates. That was really sad since most college level students should have mastered algebra concepts in high school (I took algebra in junior high.)
I believe that every US citizen should have to take a couple of economics classes in order to get your voter registration card. If this were the case, we would see a completely different outcome in elections at both a local and national basis. Almost every single issue, from oil prices, healthcare, taxation, retirement, public debt, and international trade, all have economic foundations that form the fundamental basis of what decisions and policies will produce a positive economic result.
Dozens of current news stories lament $50 oil prices and the US dependence on foreign oil, while others predict the impending doom and gloom scenario of the world actually running out of oil in the next one hundred years. I suggest that a basic understanding of economics provides me with insight that allows me to discount the doom and gloom scenarios presented by the hysterical “nay-sayers.”
You do realize that crude oil was virtually worthless until Henry Ford introduced the $1,000 Model T Ford in 1908. Before that time, crude oil was burned for heating and refined into products like kerosene, tars and paraffin for industrial use.
Before the introduction of the automobile, prices on horses, horseshoes, and saddles were the topics of public conversation and consternation. If your town didn’t have a blacksmith, you had to take the time to ride your horse to where the blacksmith was, thereby increasing the real cost of operating your vehicle (the horse.) If your town grew rapidly and the number of horses increased, your local blacksmith invariably raised the price of a set of horse shoes no matter what your mayor or congressman said or did.
Since that time, the worldwide explosion of automobiles burning gasoline, trucks burning diesel fuel, and aircraft burning kerosene, all produced from crude oil, has caused demand to meet or exceed supply. The present prices are exactly where the supply/demand equations taught in my economics class predicted they should be. The prices have virtually nothing directly to do with our government, other the slight added cost of taxes imposed at the state and federal level. That, and the regulatory influence that government has over new refinery capacity.
As compared to European gas prices, our US prices are still a bargain because of our refinery capacity and the relatively low levels of taxation as compared to European taxation. Imagine the outcry if our prices that of these foreign countries as of March 2005.
| Nation | City | Price in USD Regular/Gallon |
| Netherlands | Amsterdam | $6.48 |
| Norway | Oslo | $6.27 |
| Italy | Milan | $5.96 |
| Denmark | Copenhagen | $5.93 |
| Belgium | Brussels | $5.91 |
| Sweden | Stockholm | $5.80 |
| United Kingdom | London | $5.79 |
| Germany | Frankfurt | $5.57 |
| France | Paris | $5.54 |
| Portugal | Lisbon | $5.35 |
| Hungary | Budapest | $4.94 |
| Luxembourg | $4.82 | |
| Croatia | Zagreb | $4.81 |
| Ireland | Dublin | $4.78 |
| Switzerland | Geneva | $4.74 |
| Spain | Madrid | $4.55 |
| Japan | Tokyo | $4.24 |
| Czech Republic | Prague | $4.19 |
| Romania | Bucharest | $4.09 |
| Andorra | $4.08 | |
| Estonia | Tallinn | $3.62 |
| Bulgaria | Sofia | $3.52 |
| Brazil | Brasilia | $3.12 |
| Cuba | Havana | $3.03 |
| Taiwan | Taipei | $2.84 |
| Lebanon | Beirut | $2.63 |
| South Africa | Johannesburg | $2.62 |
| Nicaragua | Managua | $2.61 |
| Panama | Panama City | $2.19 |
| Russia | Moscow | $2.10 |
| Puerto Rico | San Juan | $1.74 |
| Saudi Arabia | Riyadh | $0.91 |
| Kuwait | Kuwait City | $0.78 |
| Egypt | Cairo | $0.65 |
| Nigeria | Lagos | $0.38 |
| Venezuela | Caracas | $0.12 |
I don't know about you, but if GAS PRICES are all you have to worry about, looks like Caracas Venezuela is a good place to drive your SUV.
And since we have only had a "Petrolium Economy" for about 100 years, I'm certain that if gas prices rise high enough, things like cars powered by Hydrogen fuel cells will become technically and financially feasable. You might also see some cities in the south like Atlanta running public transportation (trains and busses) that go somewhere other than to the slums and the malls.
So which is it--Am I smart, or really really dumb--because I don't understand the hysteria?
