Thursday, October 25, 2007

In-DUH-vidual Responsibility



Buy Your Own Damn Band-Aids

      When I was growing up, my mamma made sure I learned the meaning of individual responsibility, i.e. each person is resoponsible for, aomong other things, taking care of themselves. Most of the time she taught me using words, but when that didn't work she never hesitated to teach it to my behind using whatever suitable impliment was handy at that particular moment. I only mention this as background to explain why I felt so . . . disturbed upon hearing a certain bit of news early this morning. According to a recently released Bloomberg/LA Times opinion poll (.pdf file), nearly three-quarters of Americans believe that it is someone else's responsibility to pay for their personal healthcare. The poll numbers break down as follows:
  • 29% say it's the government's responsibility to cover its citizens

  • 23% say it's an employer's responsibility to cover their employees

  • 24% say it's the individual's responsibility to cover themselves

  • 19% say the responsibility is shared (whatever the hell that means)

To be frank (no, my name's not Frank), this disgusts me. I'm entirely serious; I find this attitude disgusting. It disgusts me that more than half of all Americans are apparently of the opinion that they bear no responsibility whatsoever to take care of themselves. It disgusts me all those people, who likely claim to be adults, can believe that they should be cared for like so many children. And it disgusts me that they apparently feel no shame in making themselves, and everyone else, a burden upon society. Unless you are a direct blood-relative, I am not responsible for your physical well-being; my responsibility ends where my immediate family does. It is not your employer's responsibility, either, and I defy you to make a case otherwise. Nor is it the government's responsibility; the preamble to the Constitution states that "We The People" formed a central government for the purpose of promoting the general welfare, not to provide for it. If you believe otherwise, you need to grow up and act like an adult.

Meanwile, Back at the Factory . . .

      That being said, the thing that really prompted me to write this was a following and related news item:
DETROIT (Reuters) - Three Chrysler LLC plants in the Detroit area on Wednesday voted to approve a proposed four-year contract for workers represented by the United Auto Workers union, boosting the chance that the contested labor pact will be ratified this week.
That's right, while most of America can only be bothered to bitch about healthcare, the UAW is actually doing something about it, and they're doing something smart. Personally, I'm not much for any sort of socialist institution, but if unions are going to exist in America, then this is the sort of thing they ought to be doing, and not simply demanding that employers give employees ever-expanding benefits packages. For those of you just tuning in, the proposed contract stipulates that in exchange for increased job security, the UAW will take over responsibility for the billions of dollars in retiree health-care obligations with which GM, Ford, and Chrysler have long been saddled. GM workers have already approved a similar contract, and the UAW's next obvious target is Ford. As I stated above, this is the sort of thing unions should be doing: providing for their membership's well-being. Unlike the US Constitution, Article Two, Section One of the UAW costitution states explicitly that it is the union's objective to ". . . create a uniform system of . . . health-care and pensions" for the workers under the union's jurisdiction, and what better way than having the union provide such benifits directly? At first take this may not sound like individual responsibility per se, but since the membership votes upon such things then this is indeed individuals taking responsibility, albeit in a corporate sense. And I'm all for that.



Wednesday, October 10, 2007

Duh 'Bates


A few thoughts on the latest in the never-ending series of presidential debates, this time featuring the (mostly nominal) Republicans:

  • It’s been said before, but these aren’t debates. They’re question-and-answer sessions.
  • Two hours is way too long for a Q&A session.
  • Two hours is way too long for anyone to be forced to watch Chris Matthews try to act like a professional reporter.
  • Is Mitt short for Mittens, and if it is why the hell would anyone do that to their kid?
  • Fred Thompson finally showed up, kind of like how we showed up late for both world wars. We also kicked ass, and maybe he will, too.
  • Note to the McCain campaign staff: put fresh batteries in the man’s hearing aid before he appears in public or, if your budget won’t permit such an extravagance, pick up one of those antique ear-horns. That would at least be funny.

Aside from Ron Paul’s mild raving about Iraq, the most entertaining thing they had going was the Mitt ‘n’ Rudy Tax-cutting Spectacle, apparently moderated by Fred Thompson who was stuck standing between them. It went a little something like this:
Giuliomney: "I was cutting taxes while he wasn’t."
Romniani: "I did too cut taxes."
Giuliomney: "Did not."
Romniani: "Did too!"
Giuliomney: "Didn’t!"
Romniani: "Did!"
Giuliomney: "Mine were bigger.
Romniani: "Oh yeah? Well . . . mine were louder!"
If by chance you're wondering which one is which, it doesn't really matter: on this issue they're both pretty much interchangable.

That is all.



Wednesday, August 29, 2007

A Note to Ditech.com


Dear Ditech.com;
      I have been watching your horrible commercials for that past few months now, and since I apparently can't avoid them no matter what channel I watch, I must now vent. In the interest of being concice and to-the-point, I'll be brief:

  1. People Are Smart.   People are manifestly un-smart. If y'all doubt this, I suggest you spend some time watching CNBC and watch all the stock market averages tank every time someone mentions the phrase "sub-prime mortgage." Base human stupidity is the reason thousands of people signed themselves up for mortgages with ridiculously low adjustable interest rates and then never considered the possibility that that interest rate might, say, triple by the time it came for their rate to be "adjusted." It's also the reason why otherwise supposedly smart people on Wall Street and elsewhere are eating billions of dollars in write-offs after investing in the same idiocy. And now that the mortgage industry is "tightening lending standards" en masse in a typical, stupid, knee-jerk & close-the-barn-door-after manner unique to the human race, I can't even think about trying to buy a house. Instead, I'm stuck here in my overpriced and undersized one-bedroom apartment wondering how long it will be before I won't be able to borrow a dollar to buy a candy bar. I'm not saying that y'all're directly responsible for any of this . . . just please stop telling me that people are smart.

  2. Creepy Cartoon Guy   That thing up there in that picture is one of the creepiest things I've seen lately. No, really, I'm serious: The Exorcist pales in comparison. When that thing pops up on my screen, larger-than-life and waving its arm around with that freakish grin on its I have to either turn my head or just close my eyes and pray that it goes away. It looks like the evil love-child spawned by Col. Sanders and Orville Redenbacher, which is an extreme insult upon two great men who brought America some damn tasty food. Get rid of it. Now.

I thank you in advance for your time and consideration in these matters. Popcorn chicken, anyone?


Sunday, August 26, 2007

Coming to America, or How Islam Won the West



      Did you know that "Muslims" first discovered the Americas? I sure didn't. I mean, I am a product of the American feudal/socialist school system. Or is that the public school system? I can never really remember; most of what they tried to cram into my brain didn't really take. But I do remember something about an Italian, funded by the Spanish, crossing the ocean blue in the year fourteen hundred and ninety-two, or something like that. Now, some have claimed that the Vikings got here first; others say it was the Chinese. However, I've never heard of the "Muslims" (Arabs? Moors? Turks?) discovering the new world, at least not before today. Praise be to Allah for sending his faithful servant Hisham Zoubeir to correct my ignorance of world history. In a ten-year-old article printed in the current issue of The Muslim Weekly, Zoubeir assures us that "We [Muslims] were in the Americas, hundreds of years before Columbus, and of that we can be sure." What's that, you say? You want proof? Well, they've got proof coming out their tarbooshes.

      No, it's not what you think; get your mind out of the gutter. According to the good folks over at the Encyclopaedia Britannica, a tarboosh is a hat. Specifically, it's a little round, cone-shaped hat which you'll probably recognize as a fez. And it is said fez that the learned Hisham Zoubeir would use as proof that Muslims discovered and colonized America. No, really, he's totally serious:
The German art historian, Alexander Von Wuthenau, also provides evidence that Muslims were in America, in the time between 300 and 900 C.E. This was at least half a millennium before Columbus was born. Carved heads that were described as "Moorish-looking" were dated between 300 and 900 C.E. and another group of heads dated between 900 and 1500 C.E. An artifact found in the earlier group was photographed, and when later examined was found to resemble an old man in a Fez, like the Egyptians.
Pretty damn convincing, ain't it? Well, it would be, except for the inconvenient fact that the fez is of ancient Greek origin, was subsequently worn by medieval Byzantines, and later adopted by the Ottoman Turks as they gradually conquered Anatolia. It was the Egyptians who made their own version and called it the tarboosh, but the way I remember history is that the Ottomans didn't appear until some time in the 12th or 13th century, long after Herr Von Wuthenau's first group of artifacts were dated. It may be possible that some Greeks managed to paddle a trireme across both the Mediterranean and the Atlantic, but I'm pretty sure they weren't Muslims. And they definitely don't look "Moorish". Perhaps if he'd claimed that some of the heads resembled the Virgin Mary he could've made a couple of bucks on eBay. I've also heard of a potato that looked like Richard Nixon, but, then again, show me one that doesn't.

      So at this point it's not looking too good for the Muslims-in-America-First theory but, praise be to Allah again, they've more "evidence". Dr. Ivan Van Sertima—the professor at Rutgers, not the mattress guy—claims that African Muslims definitely came to America before Columbus, which must be true; we've all seen the ads for Club AchMed, and who hasn't wanted to spend a delightful week or two at a Sandals & Burqas resort, conveniently located at many exotic locals throughout the al-Caribbean Sea. Speaking of the al-Caribbean, Dr. Barry Fell, of New Zealand and Harvard University, says that Muslims influenced the languages of the Native Americans, most notably the Algonquins. Algonquin sounds vaguely Arabic, i.e. al-Gonq win-Laden, which translated literally means "The Gonk of Laden." Sure sounds authentic to me. Never mind the fact that the Algonquins called themselves the Omàmiwininiwak; Fell's a Harvard linguist and, as far as I know, no Algonquin ever so much as went to Harvard, much less bothered to learn about their own language there, so what the hell would they know? Dr. Fell also claims to have found
…texts, diagrams and charts engraved on rocks that were used for schooling that dated back to 700-800 C.E. The schooling was in subjects such as mathematics, history, geography, astronomy and sea navigation. The language of instruction was Kufic Arabic, from North Africa.
Forget for the moment that Kufic is an Arabic script and not a language. I don't know about you, but I find it absolutely amazing that people so advanced as to be teaching math and astronomy and naval navigation couldn't figure out how to make some parchment or papyrus or paper and had to carve this stuff on rocks. And if they couldn't produce any paper locally, they should've been able to import it through their vast transatlantic trading network. Instead, they were apparently billing the guests at Club AchMed à la Fred Flintstone (Fareed al-Bedroq), chiseling their bar tabs on slabs of granite. How're you supposed to slip that under the door?

      Now, if you're still not convinced, then how 'bout a few words from the "Admiral of the Seas" himself? Zoubeir claims that
…for the record, Christopher Columbus, the man who so-called discovered America, himself declared that his impression of the Carib people (i.e., Caribbean people) were "Mohemmedans." He knew of the Mandinka presence in the New World (Muslims) and that Muslims from the West coast of Africa had settled down in the Caribbean, Central, South and North America.
Now, I couldn't find any references to Columbus claiming to have found "Mohemmedans" in the Caribbean, but I do know what he had to say about the Caribs, the indigenous tribe of cannibals who apparently managed to secure the naming rights to the vast new sea Columbus had just discovered. That's right, they were cannibals; you should skip the rest of this section if graphic descriptions of cannibalism ain't your cup of tea. Dr. Diego Alvarez Chanca, who chronicled Columbus' second voyage, had this to say about the Caribs:
Limbs of human bodies hung up in houses as if curing for provisions; the head of a youth so recently severed from the body that the blood was yet dripping from it, and parts of his body were roasting before the fire, along with the savoury flesh of geese and parrots.
He goes on to note that the Caribs used arrowheads made of human bones, and
…in their attacks upon the neighbouring islands, these people take as many of the women as they can, especially those who are young and beautiful, and keep them as concubines … they eat the children that they [the concubines] bear to them … Such of their male enemies as they can take alive they bring to their houses and make a feast of them, and those who are killed they devour at once. They say that man's flesh is so good, that there is nothing like it in the world … In one of the houses we found the neck of a man undergoing the process of cooking in a pot. When they take any boys prisoner they dismember [castrate] them and make use of them until they grow up to manhood, and when they wish to make a feast they kill and eat them, for they say that the flesh of boys and women is good to eat. Three of these boys came fleeing to us, thus mutilated.
Them Caribs be some mighty fine company to keep, Mr. Zoubeir.

      That messy business about the Caribs aside, it really is a bloody shame that Muslims discovered America first. Yeah, that's right: right after he says the Muslims were in America long before Columbus he goes on to write
Now, we are all aware of the grave tragedy that befell the various African people after the discovery of America. Many people from there were forcefully taken from their homes to America, to serve the people who had taken over that land. Black slavery.
Shocking, just shocking! That faithful practitioners of that great religion of peace could enslave their fellow children of the great and merciful Allah … well, just perish the thought. No, really, perish it: that's not what he meant. It was the evil Crusaders (likely at the behest of their more eviler Zionist masters, although he doesn't say so) who discovered and conquered the Americas and shipped thousands of Muslims from West Africa to slave away on the sugar and cotton plantations of America. After all, "Unlike Columbus, they had not come to enslave the populations or plunder the land; they had come to trade and they married among the Natives." These must be those mythical, peace-loving Muslims I keep hearing about. I mean, they couldn't possibly be the Muslims who ran the Muslim slave trading networks in East Africa for a thousand years. Nor could they be the North African Muslims who spent a millennium raiding the Mediterranean coasts of Europe, snatching up as many Christians as they could and carting them away into slavery. And there's no way in Jahannum that it could be those enlightened souls in Saudi Arabia who banished slavery way the hell back in 1962. These were obviously the guys who, after a hard day's work chiseling astro-navigational charts and logarithmic tables, just wanted to sit on the decks in front of their cabanas in al-Jamacia, sipping coffee and checking out all the hot chicks in their tropical-print burqas. Would that the New World were ever so lucky. Allahu Akbar.


Thursday, June 21, 2007

Fatah: What A Bargain!!!


As you ought to know by now, George Bush has decided to free up $86 million in US aid to help shore up Mahmoud Abass' corrupt and dysfunctional government now bravely cowering in the West Bank. Eighty-six million dollars is a nice chunk of change, and as a concerned taxpayer I wanted to know exactly what that's gonna buy me. I'm sure all the parties involved would tell me something something stupid like I'm ensuring the successful continuation of the Middle East "Peace Process", whatever the hell that is. I suppose it's supposed to result in peace. So, in my naiveté I wondered whether or not al-Presidenté Abbas is interested in peace. Seeing as he's also the titular leader of Fatah, I went and found their constitution. The introduction to said document didn't exactly inspire me with confidence in my "investment"; let me show you why:


Dear brother, comrade of the struggle . . .
The significance of this constitution stems from its being an application of the principles of our struggle, the pedestal of the Movement . . . With those opening words, Fatah declares that it's entire reason for being is their "struggle", i.e. their never-ending war against Israel. This isn't exactly a ringing endorsement for our supposed partners in peace; if they're interested in living peaceably with Israel, why not say so? Moreover, the opening paragraph goes on to say that Fatah's constitution "is the diciplinary framework . . . that maintains [the Movement's] path and the revolution's future"(emphasis mine). Maintaining a revolution's future isn't exactly compatable with insuring domestic tranquility.


This constitution revolves around the following principles . . .

1. The armed revolution we are waging has been set into orbit by the principle that it is a public revolution, and not one of a distinguished class, and that the public is capable of practising struggle efficiently and conscientiously. The public is also the true protector of the revolutionary organisation. This organisation has satisfied the intimate relationship between the revolution and the public via the hierarchical structure of the Movement in which the public constitutes its solid, wide base.
To arms, downtrodden and oppressed memebrs of the proletar . . . um, Palestinians! Thou art efficient and conscientious patriots, therefore we are fit to rule over you in an overtly intimate fashion. Why? Because this piece of paper says so!
With this view of the public's role in mind, the role of the organised base in the Movement is crystallised. The Movement is in close contact with the public, sharing their cares and worries and inspired by their aspirations. The public is, therefore, the sole source of authorities and the sole, honest guardian of the Movement. It is also the only party authorised to take decisive decisions, and to elect the leadership at all levels . . .
. . . except, of course, for those of our brothers over in the Gaza Strip who voted into power a completely different movement. What the hell do they know, anyway?

2. The elected leadership assumes its responsibilities on the basis of the democratic centrality principle which warrants commitment of the lower ranks to the higher ranks' decisions. The leadership is, in turn, held accountable to its conferences and councils. Higher leaderships assume a pivotal responsibility which embodies the utter unity of the organisation in different districts and institutions.
Vote for us and we promise to form committees to hold ourselves accountable to. Really. We will. We're totally serious.

3. The Movement encourages freedom of expression and criticism within the disciplinary frameworks. This is a sacred right for all members, and no authority can deny them it. Any view or criticism within the disciplinary principles should not be taken as an indictment against a member afterwards. Free expression is the only guarantee to prevent the leaderships from committing mistakes or going astray, and it is the only effective method to convey the public opinion via the different bases to the Movement's leaderships.
4. The Movement firmly believes in self-criticism by all members in general and by those in authority in particular. This is important in order to attain the goal of free criticism and expression, to put an end to continual erring, and to spell out readiness to benefit from public and self criticism. By so doing, the Movement's experience will be very much developed and its path will be made much clearer.
Please feel free to criticise us. No, really, we encourage criticism. It is only then that we'll be able offer you the experience of our clear and fully developed diciplinary frameworks.

5. In its determination on liberation and bringing about historical social changes, the Movement attempts to launch the revolutionary moral values which are on a bar with our struggle, and to create the feeling of human dignity. To this effect, the Movement tries to liberate the individual from all social ills, especially the discrimination women face, the thing that hinders their potentials and effective contributions at all disciplinary levels. This entails that the relationships among members be objective and based on the Movement's principles and constitutions. Relationships based on personal interests have no place whatsoever. The Movement, consequently, treats all members on equal footing as far as their essential obligations are concerned, and it offers equal opportunity to all faithful and active members to occupy leading positions. And while it is keen on maintaining its path, it is keen as well to get an utmost benefit from its experiences to enrich its ideology and develop its infrastructure.
Fear not, for the Movement is your sole source of moral values and dignity and can fix all your problems. Oh, by the way, women and diversity are good things, therefore the Movement is an equal-opportunity employer, so long as your intentions are pure.

6. Through its struggle, the Movement endeavours to mobilise the public in order to gain the necessary support. This task should be handled by its members. It, therefore, spares no effort to make its members set examples for others to attract the public and consolidate their faith in and loyalty to the revolutionary organisation. As a result, the member has to lead a revolutionary and exemplary life which is based on loyalty, discipline, credibility, modesty, self-denial and altruism. At the same time, he must demonstrate the highest degree of pride, rejection of reality and conformity to the Movement's principles.
Every member of the Movement is its ambassador, so y'all need to be veritable paradigms of revolutionary virtue. Otherwise, we'll never be able to get people to believe any of this crap. And don't forget to reject reality and conform totally to what we say: remember, we have "diciplinary frameworks".



Money Poorly Spent
So, this is what I'm buying? A bunch of vague overtures to democracy, freedom of expression, and the implied consent of the governed? I don't want to maintain Fatah's path: the end of that path is the destruction of Israel and the annihilation of its people, or at least so sayeth Article the Twelfth:
Article (12) Complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence.
Now, in the past the US has supported some unsavory characters; Chaing Kai-Shek and Syngman Rhee come to mind. But at least they were interested in working with us to fight communism. Fatah won't even bother to go that far, as far as cooperation goes:
Article (22) Opposing any political solution offered as an alternative to demolishing the Zionist occupation in Palestine, as well as any project intended to liquidate the Palestinian case or impose any international mandate on its people.
What Fatah wants is genocide, and they've pledged themselves to getting it, no matter the cost; somehow I doubt a mere $86 million will suffice.