Mickey Mouse is Muslim

This humorous article was published in the Dawn Newspaper in Pakistan on Jan 2, 2009 [Author: Nadeem F. Paracha]

Daddy? 

Yes, son.

Are we going to have a war with India?

Perhaps. 

Oh, goody. We will thrash them, right? Like we did in 1857!

It wasn't in 1857, son.

Oh, okay. But whom did we thrash in 1857?

The British, son…

And the Hindus too, right?

Well…

Did Quaid-i-Azam fight in that war along with Muhammad bin Qasim and Imran Khan?

No, son. The Quaid and Imran were born much later and Muhammad bin Qasim died many years before.

Then who ruled Pakistan in those days?

There was no Pakistan in those days, son.

But there was always a Pakistan! It has been there for 5,000 years! 

Who have you been talking to, son?

No one. I've just been watching TV.

It figures.

Daddy, why are all these people against us Arabs?

Arabs? But we aren't Arabs, son.

Of course we are because our ancestors were Arabs!

No, son. Our ancestors were of the subcontinental stock.

Sub-what?

Never mind.You seem to like wars, son.

Yes. I like to watch them on TV.

But real wars are fought outside the TV, son.

Really? How is that possible? What sort of a war is that? 

Never mind.

Daddy, you look worried.

Of course, I am, you little warmongering punk!

Daddy! Why are you scolding me?

Because TV is talking rot and so are you!

Daddy, are you supporting Hindus?

No!

Daddy, have you become a kafir? 

Keep quiet! No more TV for you! Go watch a movie on DVD or listen to a CD. 

Can't do that.

But we have so many DVDs and CDs, son.

Not any more.

What do you mean?

I burned them all.

What?! 

I burned them all.

I heard that! But why?

They spread obscenity.

Oh, God. Son, go do your homework. What happened to that science project you were working on?

It's almost complete.

Good boy. What are you making?

A bomb.

What?! 

A bomb.

I heard that! But why?

Because I am a true Muslim who hates America.

But only last week you wanted to go to Disney Land.

That's different.

How come?

Mickey Mouse is Muslim. 

No, he isn't.

Is so. He converted when he heard azaan on the moon.

On the moon? 

Yes. Because the earth is flat and…

What??

The earth is…

I heard that! 

Daddy, do you want to see my science project, or not?

Gosh, that bomb? But your science teacher will fail you.

No, she wont.

Really?

Yes. I plan to blow her up as well. 

God, what is wrong with you? Go call your mother!

She can't come.

Why not?

I've locked her in the kitchen.

But what for?

A woman's place is in the kitchen. I will not let her out until she covers herself up peoperly!

But she's your mother!

She's also a woman!

So?

So she should be hidden.

Hidden from whom?

The whole world and Tony.

Tony?

Yes, Tony.

But Tony's a cat.

Yes. But he's male.

Son, have you gone mad? 

No. By the way, I've made sure Kitto starts covering up as well. 

Kitto?

Yes, Kittto.

But Kitto's a cat!

Yes. But a female cat.

But she'll suffocate.

Oh, she's already dead.

What?

She's already dead.

I heard that! But how?

I buried her alive.

You what?

Yes. To avenge Tony's honour. But now I will behead Tony.

But why?

To save mom's honour!

Oh, God!

Don't say that. Always say Allah.

What's the difference?

Daddy, do you want to be beheaded too?

No! 

Do you want to be stoned to death?

No!

Do you want to be flogged?

No!

Do you want to get your arms chopped off?

No!

Then stop asking silly questions. By the way, I won't call you daddy anymore.

What will you call me then?

Whatever that is Arabic for daddy.

I don't know any Arabic, son.

That's because you are a kafir.

Who the heck are you to tell me who I am, you little fascist twit!

What's a fascist?

An irrational, violent, self-righteous mad man!

W... aaaaaaa...

Why are you crying?

You scolded me.

Okay, I'm sorry. You have to be tolerant and rational, son. Now be a good boy and go read a book instead of watching TV.

I have no books.

Of course, you do. I bought you so many books.

I burned them.

What?

I burned them.

But why?

They were all in English.

So?

It's a non-Muslim language!

But we are speaking English, aren't we? 

W... aaaaaaa…

What now?

Zionists made me forget my Arabic.

But you never knew any Arabic, son.

W... aaaa… yes, I did until you and mommy gave me the polio drops… aaaaa…

Okay, tell me, can you do me a favour?

Sure, dad. 

Can you blow up something for me?

Oh, goody! Of course, dad. What should I blow? A CD shop, a hotel, a school...?

No, no, something a lot more sinister.

Mom?

No, no…

What then?

The TV set!

What?

Blow the TV set.

I heard that! But why?

Just do it!

I see. Dad?

Yes.

You're so unconstitutional! 

Courtesy: Dawn Media Group

What innovation do you think can most transform our culture?

What is "culture"? It is our natural and inherent "value system" (how we judge and react to internal and external stimuli) and the associated range of human behavioral patterns. 

In our present culture the desire for and adulation of riches and material success over almost everything else is paramount. "How can I make more money?", "Show me the money" are the stock phases of upwardly mobile "successful" people. A person driving a Mercedes S500 draws instant admiration over someone seated in a Hyndai Elantra. Even schools of higher learning advertise their degrees as a way to make more money.

Overturning this debilitating worship of the materialistic god and returning to the true American founding value of "giving" rather than "taking" -- this would be the single most difficult yet valuable cultural change that can most transform the American society at every level.

This worship of wealth leads us to equate success with wealth and define success in terms of wealth. This kind of talk permeates our society, rules the media and starts off our children on the wrong foot armed with erroneous ideas.

Expensive does not mean good and rich does not mean great.

 and usher in an era of Kind-Excellence that will re-establish America's leadership role in the world.

It doesn't take genius to demand that you get EVERYTHING you "deserve". But it takes a man of extraordinary courage and vision to happily accept less than what he "deserves" and instead create more value for everyone around him -- and ultimately for himself.

What is "culture"? It is our natural and inherent "value system" (how we judge and react to internal and external stimuli) and the associates range of human behavioral patterns. 

-- should make it easier for everyone to realize this automatically. That is not the case today, and that is the innovative cultural change we need to transform society and make America a much happier and productive nation.

Leadership is one of those words males salivate over (American males salivate over words like strategy). Leadership, as a word, refers to the illusion that one person "gets" people moving or doing valuable things, from someone's perspective, after the fact. What "gets" that sort of thing is quite various and some cultures want, indeed, have to see that sort of thing, in all its manifestations, as due to an "individual" "leader". Solidarity in Poland was a cloud of locusts (reporters) seeking "the leader" of what in reality was a spontaneous outpouring of long pent up resentments done by the human analog of boiling water (spontaneous parallel micro-nucleation cascades--a la Los Alamos). They found an electrician (I think that's what he was) who was photogenic and near the airport and made him into the person who "led everyone into this great event". Everyone except the reporters was both surprised, amused, and contemptuous of this gross distortion of reality by Americans and Westerners forced by forces inside their minds from their upbringing and cultures, to attribute all outcomes not to the people obviously doing them but to "a leader" who must have "gotten" all those people to do that--how could mere people do anything? 

So you want to study this crap. In total quality terms I would suggest, instead, studying--the greatest outcomes small not-so-talented groups of people have ever obtained and how that happened. You will find precious little "leadership" in investigating that. 

But there is a huge market for "leadership"--all those meaningless cowardly business males lusting for "why does everyone not see my great importance in the overall scheme of things", "why is everyone always overlooking how central, big, and important I am"--poor poor males, born into a world that never makes them feel central enough and important enough. Perhaps if they crush some enemies, or mass kill whole nations--Stalin, Hitler, Alexander the Great, Napoleon--people will see how important they really are! 

Read Grint's book on leadership and Sternberg's recently edited book on it, then decide whether there is enough real stuff there to spend years of your life studying it, or whether, what you would be studying would be the insistence of certain masses of insecure males in certain Western cultures that everything big and important has, behind it as cause, a lone heroic individual person, just like them, whose importance was not adequately recognized throughout life. See if there is anything there other than sheer male hormone effects. 

That done, let's assume, the next step is figuring out what higher education intends to do to you and whether that is also what you intend to get done to you. The quality universities do not teach things like leadership--in grad schools they change your brain from amateurish ways of thinking to professional ways, they replace opinions with evidence as a basis of thought and act. You go to school NOT to learn THINGS but to get your brain trained. This feels really really humiliating and bad. Many middle age people cannot suffer through to the finish of it. 

So go to second or third tier institutions who do not train your brain but who shovel info you could better and faster get by reading a good book. You waste all your money here but the process is easy and a stamp gets put on your ass that fools people even less educated than you are. If this suits you, go ahead. 

To be strictly honest--the way your phrased your question above--indicates to me you do not have the slightest idea what graduate education is all about. If I were you I would sit in on classes ostensibly on "leadership" at Yale, Princeton, the New School, MIT, Harvard, just to get a feel of what the graduate education process at places like that is trying to do to minds like yours. 

The reason for you to do this is powerful--if you fully know WHY you will go to school well.

Once I was getting off my car in a parking lot, a couple of slots away from an American family getting off their Camry, and I clearly heard one of their 2 children (he couldn't have been more than 4 years old) point at a Mercedes and remark "That's an expensive car" with a lot of admiration. 

Obama has set the tone for a secular nation

I grew up in India, a country that is deeply steeped in religion and spiritualism, and yet it is a country that promotes itself as a secular nation where people of all religions and faith can happily co-exist.

In the United States, surprisingly, the word "secular" is often equated with "atheist". Yet that is farthest from the truth.

Secularism promotes freedom to practice any religion, or NOT practice a religion, if one so wishes. And, secularism promotes total separation of religion and state.

When Obama said in his inaugural speech that "We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus — and non-believers", it resonated deeply with me. I think it portends very well for the future direction of the country. The United States is the epitome of freedom in many ways. Yet of late we were witnessing a ridiculous and mindless trend in the name of being "politically correct" where everyone was so scared to refer to any religion for fear of offending someone or the other. I think the height of this was the effort to take Christ out of Christmas and call it by the generic name of "the Holiday Season". "Seasons Greetings" became more in vogue than the plain and simple "Merry Christmas".

Coming from a secular nation, I found it quite illogical. What's wrong in greeting a Christian on a christian holiday, a Muslim on a muslim holiday, a Jew of a jewish holiday and a Hindu on a hindu holiday?

Obama's reference to the "non believers" is a happy turn towards sanity and acknowledgment of our religious diversity and secular freedom.

Way to go, Obama.

*****

My friend Mike Schoeffler had this comment (via Facebook):

America has always struck a balance between the deep religiosity of her people and the freedom to worship as desired. While these characteristics appear superficially opposed, they actually reinforce each other. Religion grows in the absence of coercion and freedom (often) grows when protected by religious people. 

Your attention to this balance is striking - the similarity with India isn't often discussed. This common religiosity/freedom is one of the strongest reasons for the depth of the US-Israeli alliance. This factor may also explain some of the loosening of bonds with Europe.

This factor may point to an ever stronger alliance with India. History will record President Bush's outreach to India as one of the highlights of his foreign policy. Let's hope President Obama will enhance our relationship with the world's largest democracy.

Obama - What I expect from him

Jan 20, 2009 

Obama's inauguration comes at a time when the world badly needs HOPE and CHANGE, and Obama appears to stand for both. What he will actually do is yet to be seen, but he surely signifies a clear break from the "business of usual" of the past 8 years -- or even the generally unremarkable legacy of the past 16 years during which America and the world changed forever by stepping into the 21st century and experiencing highs and lows of various kinds, but we did not see any bold, distinctive step emanating from the White House.

Bush presided over one of the worst national and international downfalls in living memory, though he did correctly note that since 9/11 there hasn't been a single act of terrorism on U.S. soil -- and that cannot be just a coincidence. Clinton, on the other hand, presided over one of the most glorious economic highs in recorded history, but his misuse of his august office for petty personal picadillos destroyed the sanctity of the Presidency and underscored the moral degradation that the U.S. in general has been experiencing for decades.

Obama inherits the mantle of leadership today with perhaps the worst ever "baggage" that any President has ever had handed to him. What do I expect him to do? Surely not solve everything at the swign of a magic wand. He has already earned some respect from most quarters by forming a balanced, sensible and formidable cabinet. But nothing and nobody can solve today's mammoth problems rapidly.

What I hope and expect from Obama is, first of all, LEADERSHIP -- an element that has been in short supply for decades and which is the principal shortcoming that plagues American politics today. Give is leadership that is bold, balanced and progressive. Give us leadership that acknowledges the best values of conservative thinking and yet forges a new beginning in open-mided and reformist thought. Free us substantially from politics as usual and the degenerative cronyism that Washington is known for. Do not try to please everyone but do listen to everyone with attention and humility. Give us a new era of responsible governance and accountability.  Give us not just political leadership but moral leadership as well. And above all do not forget that you are empowered by the people of this nation and in spite of being the most powerful man in the world during the duration of your administration, you remain a servant of the people.

Country First? Hmmmmmmm!

McCain says "Country First".

But his pick of Sarah Palin was surely in the best strategic interest of his sagging campaign and NOT in the best interest of the country.

The induction of Palin into the ticket certainly served to re-energize the base and proved to be a shot in the arm for the campaign. But surely McCain cannot claim that in this great wonderful country of 300 million people, the very best V.P. candidate he could find was someone who did not even have a passport until a few days ago and had never met a single world dignitary.

"Me First. Country Next." That was McCain's clear message.

I asked my Republican friends a basic question...

The question was:

"Please suspend for the time being your belief that the Democrats can do no right, and that they are big taxing, big spending socialists, with unbalanced liberal ideas and little respect for family values.

The question for you is:

Would you be pleased if the United States rose out of the present mess and once again became a highly prosperous and secure, with arts, science, music and industry flourishing, strong family values came back in vogue, and democratic/personal freedom rising to a peak, BUT -- in your lifetime -- the Republicans never ever got the White House again?"

Below is an answer I received, which I am reproducing without comment.

"Probal:

I see democrats as a weak party that attracts: losers vs.. winners, women vs...men, most of the rank and file have room temperature IQ scores. They need Government to " take care of them." They are perpetual victims. They blame events and not themselves for being underlings.

Historically the large corporations and Robber Barons in the late 19 and early 20 th Centuries, that built this country and used them as near slave labor. Theodore Roosevelt is the era we are talking about.

Democrats exist because they need to be protected from the strong: Republicans.

To get something you have to produce. Democrats get theirs from moving it from the haves to the have knots. They create nothing but dependency. Unions got power from the owners of Industry. Republicans plugged into this and didn't need organized labor to get what they needed. They depended on their skills, cunning, preparation, strength, etc.

Democrats will never attack preemptively; they wait until they are before going to war. WWII is a prime example. Where would we be if the first Gulf war went uncontested? Our economy would not exist and Sadam would have had nukes by now, and then what?

Jimmy Carter was a miserable failure and so will Obama be if he gets his chance."

Call me a "socialist" - it disturbs me not

ExxonMobil has posted the highest ever quarterly profit in the the history of Corporate America: 

http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/30/news/companies/exxon_earnings/index.htm?cnn=yes

 

I, the capitalist, see nothing wrong - in these super-critical times (extraordinary circumstances) -- in imposing a Windfall Gain Tax on the oil companies to "spread the wealth around" a little bit. Windfall Gain essentially means "ensuing from events that were beyond the planning and control of the recipient". OPEC plotted to raise Oil Prices from $40 to $160. The Oil Companies made money hand over fist. I see nothing wrong in taking some of that windfall gain and using it for alternative energy projects or extend to small-businss as credit for creating more jobs.

 

If everything was hunky-dorey and prosperous -- like in the 90's -- then a Windfall Gain Tax would be out of the question. But these are extraordinarily critical times.

 

You want to call me a Socialist -- go ahead. It disturbs me not. What disturbs me much more is that the reigning capitalists have depleted my 401K by an obscene percentage while speaking the right language of capitalism.

 

I am not a Democrat. I am not a Republican. I call myself a Value-driven Realist. 

 

Want to call me a Socialist? Go ahead. It disturbs me not.