Out of the Race

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. But the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytising faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.

The book was first published in 1900; the war it describes took place in the 1890s. How little has Islam changed in a century.

Credit: Powerline.

"The parents will ask if there isn't some kind of surgery that can be done, so their child can keep doing the things that brought this injury on in the first place. I explain that an operation might be necessary just to alleviate the pain and to set a course for normal everyday use again.

"To tell you the truth, the kids usually take it better than the parents. Many kids are relieved. They can be kids again."

I think the major effect of episodes like “Easongate” will be a chilling effect on people of influence making outrageous statements that they can't back up with facts. To me, that's a feature, not a bug.

“'Off the record,'” says Ms. Parker, “means you're allowed to say what you think with impunity and live to see your next paycheck.” Maybe so, but it isn't, or at least shouldn't be, a license to pass off fiction as truth, especially at a gathering of rich and powerful from all over the world. Setting aside the question of why “off the record” sessions were evidently being videotaped by the WEF sponsors of the Davos gabfest, it seems pretty clear to me that the meaning of the term “off the record” as used in Davos is a lot different from what many of us ordinary folks understand. Not being a professional journalist, I think it means something akin to a person giving a reporter information that the reporter can't use in a story or cite to other potential sources, unless the same information is obtained and verified from other independent sources. In Davos the powers that be evidently thought “off the record” meant they had the right to censor and spin what was released for public consumption.

Ms. Parker cites Jeff Jarvis telling the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz that “off the record” is dead. I for one am not so sure that's necessarily a bad thing. To my thinking, “off the record” and “journalistic privilege” as claimed most recently by Judith Miller of the New York Times and Matt Cooper of the Washington Post are two sides of the same coin, i.e., they are both used to permit people in positions of power to influence, if not control, public opinion without being held accountable for their statements. Of course journalists, especially the investigative subspecies, love these devices, because it makes their jobs much easier. It's a heck of a lot easier to find creepy-crawlies when someone tells you which rocks to turn over. But easier doesn't equate to essential.

If “off the record” has a legitimate place, I believe it is only in circumstances that more closely resemble a doctor's office or the confessional than a gala for the international power elite. Eason Jordan got in trouble because was trying to have it both ways in Davos – he wanted to speak on the record for his immediate audience, but off the record for the masses. Jeff Jarvis is probably right to an extent: “off the record” is dead -- at least with respect to politicians, celebrities and the rich and powerful, and they should be careful not to state something as fact unless they have the evidence to back it up.

So, what's our option? If you don't like privatizing Social Security and I don't like it very much, but you want to do something to try to increase the rate of return, what are your options? Well one thing you could do is to give people one or two percent of the payroll tax, with the same options that Federal employees have with their retirement accounts; where you have three mutual funds that almost always perform as well or better than the market and a fourth option to buy government bonds, so you get the guaranteed social security return and a hundred percent safety just like you have with Social Security.