Burn Baby Burn

If there's no such thing as bad publicity, proof lies in the actions of a small town Florida pastor who decided to burn a Koran, the Islamic holy book. If you recall, this same 'man of the cloth' threatened to burn a Koran last September on the anniversary of 9-11. He withdrew his threat when practically the entire world pleaded with him not to do it, adding that he would never again consider burning the Koran.


"Never" lasted about six months. We don't know for certain why he did it, but when word of the action reached Afghanistan, it set off rioting and killing (primarily of western aid workers) that is still continuing today, three weeks after the incident. 


He apparently did not do it in retaliation for Afghanis burning the Holy Bible, because Muslims consider the Bible holy to them as well. I don't think he read the Koran and was so shaken by what he read that he decided it must be burned, like when the Nazis burned books in 1930s Germany. Chances are he never opened a Koran and if he did, I doubt he actually read it. 


So we are left with the most obvious reason for burning the holy book of one billion people -- publicity. The first time he threatened to burn it, he became world infamous. Possibly he gained some new church members. So, if it worked before it would probably work again. 


I want to believe that this small town pastor (I refuse to dignify him by repeating his name) suffered through a moral dilemma before deciding to go ahead and burn the Koran. Clearly, this action would hurt and inflame the people who consider it holy, in an area of the world where many US soldiers are currently risking their lives to befriend the locals. That would have to be balanced against the benefit to his congregation and Christian principles. 


On second thought, I do not believe a moral dilemma was involved. It was more likely a case of old-fashioned bigotry with the side benefit of free publicity.

Pat Robertson may be an idiot, but what about those who believe him?

As Haiti reels from yet another catastrophe, leave it to televangalist Pat Robertson for an explanation as to why this is happening. According to him, the Haitians, who were slaves imported from Africa by the French, made a pact with the devil back in the late 1700s. That resulted in their ability to overthrow their French masters and become only the second country in the Western Hemisphere to win its independence, the first being our own United States. Robertson asserts that all their misery since then, up to and including the earthquake last Tuesday, are a result of that 'pact with the devil.'

Brilliant.

An alternate explanation, the one based on reality, might have something to do the reaction of other slave-owning powers - the U.S. and Britain - who didn't want word of a successful slave rebellion to get out in the days before cable news. As a result, the US wouldn't recognize Haiti or do business with the new country for the next 60 years, until slaves were freed in our country so it was safe to recognize the only country where slaves successfully revolted against their masters. Same with England, which maintained slaves on all the other Caribbean islands until modern times.

Another possible explanation of Haiti's impoverished state is that when it became independent in 1804, the only country to recognize it was France. But that recognition came with a heavy price tag. The French want Haiti to repay them for all their lost property, buildings, infrastructure, etc. Haiti agreed, because they desperately needed a trading partner to function. That debt was so great, it was only paid off in 1946.

Of course, Pat Robertson will continue to broadcast from the planet Neptune as long as he has an audience, and that's what concerns me more. What does it say about our country and more importantly, about our future, if we have a good part of the population worrying that the devil runs our country rather than worrying about our children's poor showing internationally in math and science?

facts vs opinions 2

I was happy to see Karen Nolan's op-ed piece in today's (Monday August 17) Press Journal. Karen is from California and edits The Reporter's (a news industry publication) opinion pages. In her piece, she mentions two schools of thought regarding Letters to the Editor, one being that this is the place where people can exchange ideas and let the reader decide who or what is right. The other school of thought says opinions should be based in fact and the editor does a disservice to all readers by knowlingly printing misinformation. Karen and I agree that the latter is more desirable.

However, in a Letter to the Editor on the same page, the contributor writes, "The Bible says one of the greatest global changes was because the wickedness of man was great and all the thoughts of man were evil continually." Please raise your hand if you are continually evil. I don't know any people like that.

This Letter goes on to claim, "There was a type of greenhouse with water in the heavens around the Earth. When the Noah flood came it covered every high mountain range." Does this count as 'misinformation'?

The Letter concludes with this statement of proof: "I wouldn't even worry about it except that the Bible has never been wrong."

I feel a lot better now, knowing that the PJ only prints "opinions based in fact."

Do as I say, not as I do

Sarah Palin, with all her sermonizing about family values, abstinence and banning sex education, found herself -- as sermonizers usually do -- with the awkward reality of a pregnant teenage daughter as she was campaigning on behalf of those values. It was okay though, because the teenage father was going to do the right thing, marry the pregnant girl and support his accidental family. All this when most teenagers are more concerned with acne scars than stretch marks.

Well, lo and behold, the shotgun marriage is off. What a non-surprise. I don't find fault with these kids -- unmarried teenagers have dealt with pregnancy through the ages. I feel sorry for Bristol, not only because she probably planned to do more with her young life than be a teenage single mom, but also because she will have to raise two babies - hers and her mother's.

What have we learned?

Remember when it was necessary to pay 20% down buying a home? And your mortgage could not exceed 30% of your monthly take-home pay? If we have learned nothing else with the banking crisis, it is bad business to offer mortgages with nothing down or less (mortgages in excess of selling price), and offer those deals to customers without a credit check or even proof of employment. We have greedy lenders and spendthrift borrowers to thank for the current crisis, requiring a taxpayer bailout of epic proportions.

Imagine my surprise to learn that you can STILL get a mortgage with little or nothing down. I know of a case locally where a mortgage IN EXCESS of 100% was offered!

Let's get serious, folks! We taxpayers are fed up with irresponsible people and institutions turning the American dream of home ownership into the American nightmare. So here's what I recommend -- if your bank or lending institution is offering these pie-in-the-sky deals, tell them you are sick and tired of paying your neighbors' debts. If they don't cease and desist, you will pull all your accounts. Or better yet, you will report them to the FDIC, which is almost broke now cleaning up after failed banks.

http://www.zerodownmortgagepro.com/