University Suckers

Saturday, May 06, 2006

Open Letter II

Due to the semester being over, and to me already being back at home, my posts will be either shut down for the entire Summer, or I will shuffle through the archives of the Oracle's website and find something that doesn't make sense (trust me; it's not hard at all) and write about it; either way the posts will be few and far between.

Until next time,

Wednesday, May 03, 2006

Race Is Something That We Have No Control Over; But Somehow It Defines Who We Are. Let's Look Into This A Little More Closely...

Democracy on his mind - News


"Widely known as one of America's most eloquent philosophers and authors, Cornel West delivers his lecture, "Democracy Matters," tonight at 7 in the Special Events Center."

-Absolutely fantastic...I couldn't have pictured my tuition being spent any better than to bring Cornel West to USF; a man who promotes such evils as racism and socialism and who assaults pregnant school teachers (I know he was young when he did it, but I must admit that it felt good throwing in a low blow). I'm so glad that USF properly allocates the students' funds to bring such wonderful speakers to our campus.

"West, a professor of religion at Princeton University, is often regarded as a gifted and provocative public intellectual. His writing, teaching and lectures explore the African American traditions of the baptist church, transcendentalism, socialism and pragmatism. He gained national recognition for his best-selling work Race Matters, which explores the ongoing struggle for racial equality in America and the progression of democracy."

-Is it still considered morally acceptable if 99% of the population democratically choose to enslave the other 1%? "His writing, teaching and lectures explore the African American traditions of the baptist church, transcendentalism, socialism and pragmatism."...are those just African-American traditions, or do other races (because whatever you choose to follow depends on what color your skin is) engage in those activities as well? Does race have anything to do with value systems or personal views on certain issues? It doesn't, and it amazes me (well not really, look at who we're talking about) that Cornel West would support such a primitive method of "rationalization". What about an interracial (we'll use Caucasion and African-American as examples) child? Does he/she only have one-half of these narrow-minded views already programmed into his/her head? Does he/she act half "white"? If she has a child later in life will the child act one-fourth "black"? It's ridiculous. How do you act "black"? How do you act "white"? Since Cornel West thinks that race defines who someone is before they act, he would have to accept my example as practical. However, if you are a rational individual you will notice that it is flawed; people aren't any more or less valuable because of their skin color. Are we going to have to inter-breed until we are all the same race?

"In the hip-hop world, where not many professors or philosophers dare venture, West is an exception.

He is an avid supporter of positive hip-hop music. "West believes music is a way of communicating... hip-hop is not to be disregarded," said Sam Wright, the faculty adviser of the Black Emphasis Month Committee."

-This doesn't suprise me at all. What is "...positive hip-hop music"? I have never, in my entire life, heard a "hip-hop" song that has not degraded women, preached violence, or encouraged the use or selling of drugs. When I hear a rapper come out with a single called "John Galt's Blues" or something of the like, I might consider that "positive", but until then...

"Although his admirers have declared him an intellectual prophet because of the 16 scholarly books he's published, because Harvard elevated him to the highest scholarly distinction, his dissenters criticize his eccentricity and involvement in pop culture."

-You are not an "intellectual prophet" because of how many books your publish. The content in your books is what matters, not how many publications you have. And since one of his most famous books, Race Matters, is obviously not for the acknowledgment of the individual, his content can't be that good.

"As a long time member of the Democratic Socialists of America, West serves as an honorary chairman. He has worked with many political and social organizations, such as co-chairing the National Parenting Organization's Task Force on Parent Empowerment. West was a panelist in President Clinton's National Conversation on Race and was a member of Al Sharpton's presidential exploratory committee.

West has received several awards for his writing and been given more than 20 honorary degrees. He earned his bachelor's from Harvard University and his master's and doctorate from Princeton University."

-"As a long time member of the Democratic Socialists of America, West serves as an honorary chairman." That makes complete sense. However...SOCIALISM DOES NOT WORK. Ayn Rand once said that "When you consider socialism, do not fool yourself about its nature. Remember that there is no such dichotomy as 'human rights' versus 'property rights.' No human rights can exist without property rights. Since material goods are produced by the mind and effort of individual men, and are needed to sustain their lives, if the producer does not own the result of his effort, he does not own his life. To deny property rights means to turn men into property owned by the state. Whoever claims the 'right' to 'redistribute' the wealth produced by others is claiming the 'right' to treat human beings as chattel." Which makes so much more sense than to give up your life to a collective government. If you (the reader) are still questioning whether or not socialism is as blatant as a failure and as evil as I portray it to be, I advise you to watch this video.

Tuesday, May 02, 2006

We Should Be Tolerant Of Religion Because It's Religion; Nope, No Reasoning Here

Bush right to promote tolerance - Opinion


"Wednesday, President George W. Bush finally confronted the Christian right by denouncing anti-Islamic statements made by leaders such as Pat Robertson. While it is good the president is publicly denouncing the remarks, he should have spoken up sooner."

-I wonder if by "denouncing" the Islamic faith they mean citing actual quotes from the koran that advocate different types of evil. In America were are allowed to say whatever we want; offensive or not. If everyone agreed on every issue there would be no reason for the 1st Amendment to exist at all.

"Slay them wherever you find them...Idolatry is worse than carnage...Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme." (Surah 2:190-)

"Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it." (Surah 2:216)

"If you should die or be slain in the cause of God, His forgiveness and His mercy would surely be better than all the riches..." (Surah 3:156-)

"Forbidden to you are...married women, except those you own as slaves." (Surah 4:20-, 24-)

"Seek out your enemies relentlessly." (Surah 4:103-)

"Try as you may, you cannot treat all your wives impartially." (Surah 4:126-)

"Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends." (Surah 5:51)

"Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God's religion shall reign supreme." (Surah 8:36-)

"...make war on the leaders of unbelief...Make war on them: God will chastise them at your hands and humble them. He will grant you victory over them..." (Surah 9:12-)

"If you do not fight, He will punish you sternly, and replace you by other men." (Surah 9:37-)

"Prophet make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home." (Surah 9:73)

"Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them." (Surah 9:121-)

-...need I say more? I don't think I should have to, but I will just to clarify my viewpoints even more. The worst part of this whole ordeal is that there are literally dozens of these detestable statements all throughout the "holy" koran. No one is ever be tolerant (except for people who defended Tookie Williams and the like) of individuals that act this way, so why should it be shone in such a postive light when it's full of negative, evil idiocy? This reminds me of a time a couple of months ago when I was talking to a girl on the second floor of Cooper Hall. She said "Religion is always good", so I of course, being the natural investigator that I am, had to ask her how. After presenting similar examples to the ones I have listed above, she had no rebuttal. I brought that point to this because religion isn't always good. Afterall, I could always make a religion about worshipping unicorns and tooth-fairies, right? :) To assume that something "religious" is morally superior to anything and is above the judgement of any individual just because it's considered "religious" is inane.

"Since Sept. 11, Muslims have faced public attacks on their religion by members of the Christian right. Most notable were the remarks made by Jerry Falwell in October. Falwell made the comment that Muhammad, the most respected prophet of Islam, was a terrorist. The comments enraged Muslims and even sparked a riot in India that left five people dead and at least 50 injured. He eventually issued an apology, but by then damage had already been done."

-I'm not even sure who Jerry Falwell is, but just when I thought he hit the nail on the head, he apologized. The "prophet" Muhammad was a terrorist. You can virtually open up to any page of the "holy" koran and notice unjustified violence being advocated to anyone who will lend a listening ear.

"There are at least one billion Muslims in the world, and understanding them is important. President Bush has started Americans down a good path by noting that the "vast majority of American citizens respect the Islamic people and the Muslim faith." Bush is correct about that, and while his message may be late, it is not so late that people cannot re-address how they interact or view Islam and Muslims in general."

-"There are at least one billion Muslims in the world, and understanding them is important." Tell me why. I don't tolerate murderers or rapists in a social setting, but in a religious arrangement the "holy" koran cites both of those traits (among many other negative characteristics) as both acceptable and mandatory for their followers. Should we be tolerant of the worst serial-killer in American history, Gary Ridgway? Should we be tolerant to his views and moral code? Should we be tolerant of him killing 48 innocent women?

"The holiday season is already in full swing, and it is a good time for reflection on all the world's religions and a time to celebrate peace and good cheer."

-This religion doesn't focus on peace at all.

Im not a huge fan of putting images up on my blog, but I couldn't resist this one:

-Just in case it's too small to see, on the bottom of the left page of the koran, it asks the question of: "What Does Your Religion Mean For You?"

The Conclusion:

-This form of religion doesn't revolve around peace, regardless of whatever you hear. If you were to actually pick apart the "holy" koran, you would slowly begin to notice this unavoidable fact. I cannot have "tolerance" for a belief system that engages in stoning an innocent woman to death and the like (WARNING! Be careful; this video is extremely graphic, if you have a weak stomach I wouldn't advise that you watch it). These things need to be known. Oh and by the way, if you were offended that I put the word holy in quotation marks regarding the koran, I'm glad.*

*For the English to Arabic translation of this sentence: وبالمناسبه ، لو كان المتضرر ان اطرح كلمه "مقدسه" علامات الاقتباس حول القران ، وانا سعيد.

Monday, May 01, 2006

Wal-Mart Is So Evil Because Their Prices Are Low And They Give People Jobs. What?!

Wal-Mart class action suit biggest in history - Opinion


"Right now, Wal-Mart is the most successful retailer in the world. Its ability to make money and grow in size is incomparable in its industry. Wal-Mart did not get to this point through equal treatment of employees and fair business practices, however. The Wal-Mart empire thrives on destroying small-town America and offering little in return to the many employees whose hard work helps bring this company success. As if that isn't bad enough, it is now facing a nationwide lawsuit for sexual discrimination."

-"Wal-Mart did not get to this point through equal treatment of employees and fair business practices, however." What is it that you propose we should do then? Do you think it's fair to fine a business for being too successful? In case you forgot, Wal-Mart was a small business once too and its rise to fame and fortune was not left to luck. What is being implied is that Wal-Mart is being evil because, like any other business, small or not, it is trying to make money through whatever means necessary. Is there a double-standard for companies that haven't "made it" yet compared to Wal-Mart? It sure sounds close to it. It's not Wal-Mart's fault that the consumer chooses to shop at Wal-mart and not some small-time business or that the retail giant became successful. Wal-Mart does not have a government-issued monopoly on the retail industry; the customers are free to shop anywhere they please for any reason. Should companies all strive for mediocrity instead of superiority? The biggest problem is that Wal-Mart is being branded as being evil because it took risks and alternative methods to sell their product, and now is extremely successful, and other companies are either are too lazy to engage in this, or haven't came up with a tactic that is good enough to be considered for practical use. Punishing Wal-Mart for succeeding is not going to assist in other businesses' profits, now or later. How does market dominance (not a monopoly) stifle creativity when one of the only methods of keeping your business alive is to approach the market with new, more creative ideas of expansion and sales?

"According to, there are 115 women who worked at 184 different stores in 30 different states who are willing to testify against the retail giant. This Web site offers information to any current or former female Wal-Mart employee who has experienced a "glass ceiling" or has been made to feel inferior at her job. The lawsuit involves women who have "been denied positions, seen newly hired men promoted over them, been denied equal pay or been retaliated against for complaining about discrimination," according to the Web site."

-I am not one for degrading someone for their gender, but the part about having "...been denied positions, seen newly hired men promoted over them, been denied equal pay..." says nothing about sexual discrimination. What if the women that complained about this alleged "sexual discrimination" weren't truly qualified for the job? Qualification, of any sorts, should be left strictly to the personal merit, achievements, and actual relevance that the particular employee has to improving the company. Besides the point at hand, if a company wants to hire or promote only men (or only women, minorities, etc.) they should be allowed to do so because its their business. It is not in their best interest to do so, but they should be allowed to hire whoever they want for any reason(s) at any time. If they wish to stay in business, I wouldn't advise hiring on a preferential basis, I would advise, in every circumstance that they come across, to hire the best prospect for their company, based on nothing more than the achievements of that certain individual. If this was done by throwing all of those unrelated traits out-of-the-window, preference without reason, such as racism and sexism, would dissolve and companies would flourish even more, promoting more wealth for everyone.

"Complaints brought against the retail giant span from sexual to just plain sexist. One woman complained a stripper was hired to perform at a store meeting for a male manager's birthday. A corporate employee recalled being forced to meet her male business associates at Hooters for business lunches. Another former employee reported being told she and other females didn't need top pay or the first pick for promotions because women don't need the money as badly; their husbands should support them. Am I mistaken, or does that sound like a comment that belongs in 1950?"

-Again, allegations will be allegations. They will stay allegations until some sort of evidence is presented and connected strongly to the case at hand. I can make allegations about anything, or anyone anytime I want, but without proof they are (as they should be) immediately dismissed. As for Hooters being a place for lunch, so what? Its not like they went to the Mons Venus Strip club located off of 2040 North Dale Mabry, Tampa, Florida or anything like that for lunch. :) Besides that, were these lunches mandatory or where they optional? Somehow I doubt that a discussion about serious matters relating to the business was conducted at a place like hooters. From what I can tell, it looks like she didn't have to go, period. After all the dust settles, who's fault is it truly? Is it Wal-Mart's fault that they didn't have a totalitarian dictatorship over every action of their employees? Or is it the individual's fault for action upon their own freewill and rational consciousness? Why should Wal-Mart pay for their employees actions? Because they hired them? Is the U.S. Post Office legally responsible for all the workers that go around shooting other Post Office employees? Of course they aren't and by using the same line of reasoning, Wal-Mart should not be held responsible for the private actions of its employees. Wal-Mart recieves the major burden of guilt by being sued for millions of dollars, but the employee who actually committed the injustice might, at the most, get fired? Something seems a miss...

The Conclusion:

-Wal-Mart is not legally or morally responsible for the actions of its employees. It would be impossible for Wal-Mart to even begin to regulate its workers to the image of what a "model-employee" is suppose to look like. If discrimination were to occur, facts still need to be presented such as written documentation, video, audio, etc. Like I said before, accusations will only go as far as the facts will allow. I do not agree with harassment, mainly physical, but regarding this certain case, the facts seem a little more than shaky. Besides, they don't truly have to work at Wal-Mart now do they?