Baba Ali: Who Hijacked Islam?

This is a good video, especially for those who like to precede the terms terrorists or fanatics with Muslim or Islam.

Persuasion Quotes

I have re-read Jane Austen's Persuasion many times. It is my favourite of her six novels. I believe that it has got to be her best novel. It is a very human story - full of recognizable and genuine emotions. The depth of affection the two main characters have for each other is very touching. Here are some quotes.

"He was, at the time, a remarkably fine young man, with a great deal of intelligence, spirit, and brilliancy; and Anne an extremely pretty girl, with gentleness, modesty, taste, and feeling. Half the sum of attraction, on either side, might have been enough, for he had nothing to do, and she had hardly anybody to love; but the encounter of such lavish recommendations could not fail. It would be difficult to say which had seen highest perfection in the other, or which had been the happiest: she, in receiving his declarations and proposals, or he in having them accepted."

Anne Elliot and Captain Wentworth's first meeting, eight years before the story begins.
Persuasion, chapter 4

"It sometimes happens that a woman is handsomer at twenty-nine than she was ten years before; and, generally speaking, if there has been neither ill-health nor anxiety, it is a time of life at which scarcely any charm is lost."

Persuasion, volume 1, chapter 1

"How eloquent could Anne Elliot have been! how eloquent, at least, were her wishes on the side of early warm attachment, and a cheerful confidence in futurity, against that over-anxious caution which seems to insult exertion and distrust Providence! She had been forced into prudence in her youth; she learned romance as she grew older: the natural sequel of an unnatural beginning."

Persuasion, chapter 4

"Soon, however, she began to reason with herself, and try to be feeling less. . . . Alas! with all her reasonings she found that to retentive feelings eight years may be little more than nothing. Now, how were his sentiments to be read? Was this like wishing to avoid her? And the next moment she was hating herself for the folly which asked the question."

Anne, on encountering Captain Wentworth after not having seen him for years

Persuasion, volume 1, chapter 7

"His cold politeness, his ceremonious grace, were worse than anything."

Anne of Captain Wentworth
Persuasion, volume 1, chapter 8

"All the privilege I claim for my own sex (it is not a very enviable one; you need not covet it), is that of loving longest, when existence or when hope is gone."

Anne to Captain Harville

Persuasion, volume 2, chapter 11

"Dare not say that man forgets sooner than woman, that his love has an earlier death. I have loved none but you. Unjust I may have been, weak and resentful I have been, but never inconstant. You alone have brought me to Bath. For you alone, I think and plan. Have you not seen this? Can you fail to have understood my wishes?"

Captain Wentworth's letter to Anne
Persuasion, volume 2, chapter 11

"'It is a sort of pain, too, which is new to me. I have been used to the gratification of believing myself to earn every blessing that I enjoyed. I have valued myself on honourable toils and just rewards. Like other great men under reverses,' he added with a smile, 'I must endeavor to subdue my mind to my fortune. I must learn to brook being happier than I deserve."'

Captain Wentworth

Persuasion, volume 2, chapter 11

"There they exchanged again those feelings and those promises which had once before seemed to secure everything, but which had been followed by so many, many years of division and estrangement. There they returned again into the past, more exquisitely happy, perhaps, in their re-union, than when it had been first projected; more tender, more tried, more fixed in a knowledge of each other's character, truth, and attachment; more equal to act, more justified in acting."

Anne and Captain Wentworth's engagement.
Persuasion, volume 2, chapter 11

Danish Cartoons Outrage

Here we go again. Two Tunisians and a Dane of Moroccan descent were arrested by the Danish police last month on charges of plotting to kill Mr. Kurt Westergaard, one of the 12 cartoonists whose pictures of Muhammad in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten sparked protests by Muslims around the world in 2006. Mr. Westergaard drew Muhammad with a bomb in his turban.

In response to these arrests, 17 Danish newspapers decided to offend one billion Muslim believers around the world, by publishing the offensive cartoons, so as to declare solidarity with Mr. Westergaard. Wise move indeed - for the Danish move only provoked another round of demonstrations by Muslims around the world.

I truly wonder how the Danish thinking process went - maybe it went something like this: "Three misguided men who profess to be Muslims, who are also potential murderers, are locked up in jail, and they will be sentenced for their plottings. But now we have to punish, belittle and insult scores of other Muslims around the world, who had no part of this plot at all! Afterall, one billion Muslims should be accountable for the actions of three individuals".

The ironic part is that people would have you believe that the issue at hand is about principles, democracy, liberalism and freedom of expression. It cannot be farther from the truth. Not even Mill went so far to suggest that all forms of expression were justifiable. In reality, freedom of expression is always to an extent regulated in all societies, for example, through hate speech laws in Western societies.

The editor at the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, Mr Felming Rose was quoted as saying "It was not about mocking a minority but a religious figure, the Prophet, so it was blasphemy, not racism. The idea of challenging religious authority led to liberal democracy, whereas the singling out of minorities, as minorities, led to Nazism and the persecution of the bourgeoisie in Russia. So this distinction is crucial to understand.”

Utter hogwash. It is blasphemy for the believer, to mock a religious figure, but not so for an unbeliever who holds nothing in the religion sacred. So it was not blasphemy the newspapers were guilty of. However, they could have been guilty of blasphemous libel in countries where there is such a law, like in the United Kingdom or. New Zealand. When expressing an opinion on any religious subject, it should be expressed in good faith and in decent language. Commonsensical enough. Doing otherwise, amounts to blasphemous libel.

Now considering that Denmark does not have such a law, then we can assume that the newspapers were also not guilty of blasphemous libel. If they were not guilty of blasphemy or blasphemous libel, were they guilty of racism?

The cartoons showed Prophet Muhammad wearing a turban with a bomb. The implication is easy enough to understand. The beliefs of one billion Muslims are derived from two main sources two - the Quran, the literal word of God as revealed to the Prophet, and the Hadith, which are the saying and actions of the Prophet. The Prophet is central to the Islam as the transmittor of religion.

Taken in that context, the bomb in the Prophet's turban, signified the Dane's assertion that the Prophet taught Muslims to be a violent and murdering people - that violence is at the cornerstone of the religion. But anyone who has studied the religion would tell you differently.

In effect, the Danes were saying that all Muslims are inherently violent because of their faith. They were tarring all Muslims with the same brush.

How is that not racism?

Mr Rose further claimed that "images are open to interpretation, they’re different from words”.

Words are also open to interpretation - two people can hear the same speech and come away with totally different impressions; note for example reactions to Senator Obama's recent speech on race in America.

But the cartoonist who drew the bomb in a turban cartoon, Mr. Westergaard admitted openly that “cartoons always concentrate and simplify an idea and allow a quick impression that arouses some strong feeling".

So how is that not an incitement to hatred towards Muslims?

The crux of the matter is that this is all about race and the blatant lack of respect accorded to Danish citizens who are not blonde or blue-eyed (bluntly said, but you know what I mean). Denmark has had to deal with its Muslim immigrants, especially with the younger generation of Muslims who were born and bred in Denmark, but who are now asserting their religious identity. The Danes are reluctant to accept the concept of multiculturalism as have successful multi-ethnic countries such as Singapore - why you have to ask them. Case in point, Denmark forces new immigrants to watch a video with unclothed females in it because they know it is offensive to Muslim sensibilities, just so they can force home the point that practicing Muslims are unwelcome in Denmark.

Try doing that in good old America and you'd have a proper backlash from feminists, evangelicals and so on!

To suggest that this is about something else other than plain racism is hyprocrisy.

Racism in the USA

Senator Obama is apparently writing a speech that he will deliver tomorrow. He seeks to clarify his association with his (now former?) pastor Reverand Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. Senator Obama has removed Mr. Wright from a religious advisory committee on his campaign on Friday after intense media scrutiny to statements made by the pastor. Mr Wright has characterized the United States as fundamentally racist and its government as corrupt and murderous. While Senator Obama has been dogged by similar questions over his relationship with the pastor over the past year, he feels the need to explain himself to Americans.

I suppose that is necessary because the average white American is still living in a deluded world where he or she thinks Mr Wright's statements are a gross misrepresentation. And Senator Obama's opponents will not miss the opportunity to do some serious scare-mongering over Senator's Obama "unpatriotic" stance.

But the average ethnic minority American will tell you another story (see for example, ABC's attempt to shed light on racism towards American Muslims). And the average non-American (that is, everyone else in this world) will tell you another story of unjust and arrogant American hard power.

Essentially, what Mr Wright said is not so far from the truth, but he has been demonized for saying it. And if you, the average American, were really honest with yourself, you would accept the truth for what it is. And instead demand this of the politicians: when will be the day Americans can have a serious discourse on race, racism and discrimination in this country without the need to be on the defence?

In a television interview with PBS on Monday, Mr. Obama called his pastor’s remarks “stupid” and added that, “it has been a distraction from the core message of our campaign.”

I was a little disappointed to see him back away Mr. Wright in such a manner when he had stuck with him for so long, not only attending his church, but naming a book after one of his sermons. Perhaps I expected too much from him too soon.

I will await his speech tomorrow.

Re-Financing My Home

After many years of paying rent, I bought my first condo apartment two years ago, back when the US property prices were still relatively hot. I obtained a 30-year fixed mortgage loan, placed a 20% downpayment, and secured a good low interest rate, all thanks to my good credit score of 760. My chosen condo was located in a fantastic neighborhood known for its affluence - low property taxes, excellent property appreciation rate, and good town services and public schools.

With the recent subprime crisis, and the Fed's interest rate cuts that have been going on, it became attractive for me to decide to re-finance. The following article is about my experience on the re-financing process.

The general rule is that refinancing is worth it if the current interest rate on the mortgage is at least two percentage points higher than the market rate. My original interest rate for the fixed 30-year loan was a 6.25%. I was offered as low as 5.5 % by several mortgage brokers and banks. Even though, the difference was not two percentage points, I decided to go throiugh with the re-financing because I calculated that I would be saving more over the long-run. I finally decided to take up an offer from my current lender at 5.62%, even though the interest rate offered was not the lowest I had from my choices. Why did I do that?

Firstly, the current lender already had a demonstrated record of my on-time payments for the past two years, and I reasoned that they would be less likely to give me a stringent look for that reason. Secondly, since they already had all of my information, I reasoned that the re-financing process would be more streamlined, with less complications.

I was right on both counts - more or less. My re-financing application with the current lender was approved without much fuss. I did not have to show documentary proof of my financial assets, or do any tedious paperwork, as I did during my orginal loan application two years ago.

A list of the common fees associated with the re-finance that I came across are: application fee, title insurance, closing attorney's fees, loan origination fee, appraisal fee and mortgage insurance.

This is what I did to minimize the costs of fees:

I chose my own closing attorney (the attorney that did my closing two years ago). His fees are less than if I went with the lender's closing attorney. So do not assume that you have to use the lender's attorney, be sure to ask your lender if you use your own. My attorney also did the title work, which further saved me money.

You can also choose your own appraisal company. I would suggest you do that. I made the mistake of going with the lender's choice of an appraiser. Firstly, it cost more. Secondly, the appraiser did not do a good job - he assesed only the interior of the apartment without taking into consideration the deeded parking, storage, swimming pool, sauna, gardens, entertainment rooms, and the vast land surrounding the apartment building when he appraised the property. Make sure the appraiser takes into consideration all of these factors when apprasing your home.

The appraiser who looked at my condo apartment appraised the value $2000 less than what was needed to have a streamlined re-financing process.

You can do one of several things. Dispute the appraised value. Obtain 3 MLS Listings that meet the following criteria: (a) They have sold within the last 6 months (b) They are within 1 mile of your home. But given the housing downturn, not too many people are selling their properties. Most, especially those in the affluent areas, are holding on to their properties, and weathering the storm. It may be not be worth the trouble to do dispute the value unless you are absoultely sure you have the data to back you up. Or you can finance the remaining portion in a home equity line of credit.

Or you can have your lender make a counter offer, which is what I have done.

I will write more on my re-financing process as it proceeds.

Standing Humiliated

I do not follow the lurid details of political scandals that hit the front pages of newspapers with a regular frequency that has ceased to be surprising. It is the usual stuff repeated time and time again - married politician engages in some sick and perverted secret behaviour, or he commits a federal felony, secret is revealed to all, politician embarrasses his wife, family and ruins his reputation, politician falls from grace, loses political power, the newspapers hound him for a time, then forget about it, and the politician resumes life. If the politician was charged with a federal felony (and not just infidelity) then he gets pardoned by his President (you need the names?).

This time it is New York's Governor Spitzer to fall from grace. I would have have scarcely paid attention to the news on this, if not for this picture that had been published on the New York Times (see above). The Governor's humiliated wife standing next to him for all the world to witness - deep and dark circles around her eyes - as he announced his resignation. I think it caught my attention because it reminded me of another woman, Hillary Clinton, who also stood by her husband who had also humiliated her in front of the world.

I have seen many wives of public figures stand next to the very man who had humiliated them in press conferences - wives appearing strained, but nevertheless projecting an image of a willingness to forgive by their act of standing by the cheating man. The idea we are supposed to get apparently is that if she, the primary victim of a cheating husband, can stomach the humiliation and the betrayal of trust, then we the public should be similarly inclined to not condemn our elected political representatives.

Well, the world's not made that way. Consequences have to follow misdeeds. And the wives' public reactions do matter because their actions send a message to young female children. If not the children of the world, how about their own children? Just what do they teach them by appearing self-sacrificing - that it is acceptable for someone (no less than their father) to betray their mother's trust, that as a wife she has to suck it in and put a strong face for the public?

These are not empowering messages; it' not what you'd want your daughters to carry in their minds.

A regular (non-political) betrayed woman who have faced infidelity in a marriage would not have stomached it as Mrs Spitzer did (much less have the temerity to advice her husband NOT to resign from his office). A regular betrayed woman would not even have the ability to face, or be near the person who had caused her pain. I dare you reader to ask around.

So when I saw Mrs Spitzer next to the Governor today, I felt disgust, not pity. Betrayal of one's trust is a deal breaker, it is not a time to be self-sacrificing. Mrs Spitzer would have commanded respect from women like myself, if she had not shared the podium with the Governor today.

Unless of course, she is like Hillary Clinton, and she wants to be the next President.

Common Man's Attempt to Beat Inflation

So we all know that we have been hit by inflation - my personal awakening call being a price increase in my favourite bread! Is it possible, for us normal folks, to "profit" from inflation through our own means? At least, can we prevent inflation from making victims of us all?

I decided to think of some ways to do exactly that. We should at least be aware of the available possibilities out there to help us prevent inflation from eating away at our hard-earned money!

My first idea to avoid being a inflation victim came because I was worried about the strenthening EUR currency against the US dollar (USD). Now I have a vacation coming up, and I have been planning a getaway to Europe this summer. I do not intend to abandon my Europe vacation just because my US dollars are worth less today than before. At the same time, I do not want to sit around till the summer and watch this continue to happen.

So I came up with this simple idea of "reserving" for the future cost of things I am going to spend on. For instance, I can assume my vacation budget would be 3000 EUR, and if I assume that the EUR currency will continue to increase in value, then the future value of the EUR will be higher.

In this case, I can buy the EUR and sell the USD in a forex account. By buying the EUR, I am "reserving" the current price of the EUR/USD for future use. The money I need to put down is not the entire 3000 that I intend to spend on my vacation, but only what the forex account requires, which would be one hundredth of the 3000.

If the EUR goes up, I make money. And if the USD goes up, I have not lost anything because my USD dollars are now worth more in the forex exchange market (I have more buying power during my Europe vacation). And the money I was required to put down in the forex account was significantly minimal. There is almost nothing to lose in this idea.

What'd you think of this?

An Un-American Question and Answer

In an non-discriminatory, democratic and secular country, one of the pertinent (and legitimate) questions that needs to be asked of its running presidential candidates, would be whether they are genuine citizens of the country they are seeking to govern.

For instance, if a running candidate had dual citizenship, that of an Israeli and United States citizenship as an example, a legitimate question could be: Are you an American, and can we trust you to govern with our interests at heart?

On “60 Minutes,” Steve Kroft showed Senator Clinton a clip on the program of a voter in Ohio who said that he’d heard that Senator Obama didn’t know the national anthem, “wouldn’t use the Holy Bible,” and was a Muslim. Then he asked her is she believed that Senator Obama was a Muslim. This was her reply: “No. No. Why would I? No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know.”

Never mind her answer that was intended to play on certain racist voters' discriminatory feelings against Muslims by casting doubts on Senator's Obama's identity. That is all too apparent to an educated person. Senator Clinton is nothing more than a bigot.

But why in the first place was the question even posed on a mainstream television documentary show? The question of Senator Obama's religious identity should not even be a factor in this election, if America is a democratic and secular country. It is beyond me why it is acceptable for a journalist to even ask such a question in such a manner. It is a blatantly un-American question.

America is supposed to be a secular democratic country, and a non-discriminatory country.

And a candidate to the highest office of this country should embody all of its characteristics.

A true American should never ask that question if he subcribes to the US constitution.

Strictly Platonic

A lot of women ask this of themselves : can a woman have a strictly platonic relationship with a man? The popular definition of a platonic relationship, used in the modern context, is a relationship that is deep and meaningful, but also non-sexual (that is, not explicitly romantic). It can be relationships with the same or opposite gender, and does not exclude relatives. Never mind what the philosophical term platonic was actually coined for way back in the 15th century - it actually has something to do with love between an older man and a younger man; homosexuality (yes, do some research on it if you don't believe me!).

Going by the modern definition, I have had platonic relationships with all of my girlfriends, my brothers, and some of my close male relatives. But since I entered into a relationship with my boyfriend, many years ago, he has became my closest confidant, and a best friend. Now I am hesistant to make friends with males because I do not see how a platonic friendship with a male will benefit me. I think that one tends to share one's innermost thoughts and feelings with a spouse, boyfriend, or partner so as to have a deep and meaningful relationship. If someone is unable to do that with one's partner and looks for it elsewhere, then that person should not be with that partner in the first place.

But is that an insular way of thinking? Especially in this day and age?

After all, you cannot hope to see eye-to-eye with one's spouse on everything, nor share the same interests. Is is acceptable to pursue your interests outside of a relationship with a strictly platonic friend of an opposite gender when you cannot share them with your spouse or partner?

One friend says that it is impossible to be a strictly platonic friend with someone of an opposite gender. That at some point in the friendship, there would be complications - either spending too much time with the friend and causing problems with the spouse or partner, or sexual tension between the strictly platonic friend and herself. I suppose that would hold true if both individuals were attracted to each other. And the worry here is that it can become a possibility later on even if the intention in the beginning was merely to share a common interest. Afterall, sexual attraction is not only based on looks, and physicality, but also based on feelings. If two individuals spend a lot of time with each other on a common interest, and enjoy it, who is to say it will not progress to something else?

Another claims that it is acceptable so long you meet up in a mixed group, and not alone, when going out with a strictly platonic friend of the opposite gender. But with a mixed group, you are unable to establish a deep and meaningful friendship with a specific individual. Instead, you are establishing a friendship with a group, and most likely, it would be a superficial friendship based on some common pursuit - for example, fun group activities like movies, bowling, or eating out. How many of us are able to share our innermost thoughts with several individuals in a group setting? Not many, I think.

I try not to over-analyze things. I like my life to be uncomplicated. When I found a partner, I wanted that partner primarily (and not anyone else) to share my life, my feelings, and my thoughts.

He is unable to be a shopping partner, and he is not much of a nature lover, so for that, I turn to my girlfriends. They're much enjoyable to shop with, and hike with anyway! But for almost all other of my interests, he's still my best partner. Isn't that the way it should be?

Simply that.

Pita Bread Inflation Signal

I absolutely love eating Syrian pita bread. I can eat it anytime of the day. For breakfast, I eat it with some garlic hummus. For lunch or dinner, I eat it as pita sandwich rolls. I even make them into garlic pita chips as snack. It is such a versatile bread!

I usually get my stash of Syrian pita bread from a Pakistani ethnic grocer. I buy 6 packets, place them in the freezer, and take them out as needed. When I went to my grocer this week to replace my depleted stash, I learned that he had increased the price of one packet of pita bread from $1.75 to $2.00. Coming in the wake his recent price hike of the pita bread only just a few months ago from $1.50 to $1.75, I was surprised. I can still remember the days (three years ago) when the same packet of pita bread cost me only $0.50!

The Pakistani grocer shrugged his shoulders, and said he had no choice because his wholesalers had increased the price on their side. Then he launched into a gloomy account on the state of the US economy, noting that he used to sell 100 pita bread packets in one week compared to the 50 he was doing now.

I suppose I should not have been so surprised. After all, I did note the increases in prices from milk to green vegetables when grocery shopping these few months - my household expenditure on food items have increased. But it took the pita bread price increase for it to truly register in my mind. Grocers, such as the Pakistani, was merely passing the cost done the line to the consumers. When the price of bread increases dramatically, there is a reason for it.

America has a growing inflation problem. For the first time since 1981, wholesale prices rose by 7.4%, mostly driven by rising food and energy costs. The dollar has weakened against many world currencies. For instance, there was a spectacular move last week on the EUR/USD pair when the EUR strengthened strongly against the US dollar; it has still not corrected, and maybe will not for a long time (and I am losing money on the pair as I write). Then there is the falling house prices. All of this despite the Fed's lowering of the overnight interest rates to 3 percent from 5.25 percent in five steps since mid-September last year. And possibly more cuts to come, when the Fed meets again on March 18.

Rising energy prices, declining values for the dollar and the house, tightening credit and volatile stock and forex markets. There are no quick fixes to this.

Suddenly, I feel a whole lot poorer. And I know I am not alone.