(Why We Have Been Conditioned by the Media - and Neocons Specifically - to Hate Islam.)
I haven't been too active here lately.
Of late, the Townhall blog and forums have been the furthest thing from my mind.
Oh I enjoy slumming as much as the next guy, believe me. It gives one perspective.
And at some level, it's got to be good for the soul.
But Townhall?
I mean, really.
If I wanted to read about nuking Iran, I would listen to Michael Savage.
If I wanted to read about how we need to defend Israel, and that Di$k Cheney was the greatest vice president of the past 50 years, I would tune in to Michael Medved.
Or if I had any doubts that republicans were good and democrats were bad, I would turn to Sean Hannity to reassure me.
And so I apologize if this has already been rationally and intelligently debated and discussed, but I did come across something that did this morning catch my eye:
Islamic finance has five pillars: a ban on interest, a ban on speculation, a ban on haram (forbidden) investments, such as pork or gambling, the requirement of partnership or sharing of profit and loss and the requirement of asset backing. Getting round the ban on interest is the problem and opportunity of Islamic finance … Typically, interest is expressed as a share in a profit, such as the rent paid for use of a property or asset.
------------------------
www.theaustralian.com.au/business/news/western-investors-watch-nervously-as-worth-of-islamic-bond-is-tested-to-limit/story-e6frg90o-1225804452440
-----------------------
Interesting.
A ban on interest?
How is a banker supposed to eat if he can't charge 29.9% interest? Shake yourself, Mohammed!
A ban on speculation? You mean no more 50:1 leverage? Listen. It wasn't the bank's money anyway. Why hold
them responsible?? Who gave the money to the banks? That's right - it was Mr. and Mrs. Smith. Why not hold
them accountable? Huh?
(Author's note: As an options trader, I profit from and have a healthy respect for leverage. However, if I'm wrong... I eat it. Not the taxpayer!)
A ban on gambling? How provincial! You mean, investments have to be... ethical? How is a guy supposed to get ahead in this world? Hard work and honesty? This reminds me of the old saying: Why go to jail when you can go to Washington?
(As a sidenote, this is the reason the Muslim is so backwards, and why they don't and will never have a Las Vegas. I've been to Las Vegas, and let me tell you, Meccah ain't no Las Vegas.)
"Partnership or sharing of profit and loss"? Now this is beyond the pale. I mean, really. I can understand not privatizing profits. People want somethin' for nothin'. Always have, and always will. But this would also mean the end of the socializing of losses. That's correct. Not to mention no more 600 million dollar bonuses(see Paulson, Hank).
(For the record, the author has no problem with bonuses. Why? Because a deal's a deal.)
Asset backing? Ok, now these people are insulting my manhood, and apple pie itself. Are we really supposed to do away with mortgage-backed securities that were fraudulently rated triple-A?(See Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Phill Graham and Chuck Schumer.)
In conclusion, let me say that it is clear for all to see that this business model would be very bad for the benign banker.
No one knows what would happen if such a rubric were to be implemented. But it might just mean a freeze-up of the credit markets, and the end of debt as we know it. And if the American people aren't in debt, how are they to be controlled?
It is an unacceptable situation, and leads me to ask:
Could demonic Islamic finance be the driving force behind our "war on terror"?
I should ask Bill O'Reilly. He'd know. Or maybe I should read Sarah Palin's new book. I'm sure I'd find the answer in the chapter entitled "Intellectual Giant".
(Going Rogue. I wonder which word has the greater frequency of usage: "constitution"... or "hockey mom"?
It could be a toss-up. Maybe Sarah likes morning constitutions.
???????????????)