Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Mon 12/22/2003 View Sun 12/21/2003 View Sat 12/20/2003 View Fri 12/19/2003 View Thu 12/18/2003 View Wed 12/17/2003 View Tue 12/16/2003
1
2003-12-22 India-Pakistan
Saudi scholars warn against products with religious names
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Fred Pruitt 2003-12-22 00:15|| || Front Page|| [11132 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 There goes my idea for marketing Holy Koran Kola...

Sorry, Fred. Looks as thought if you were to try it, you'd be... "under SREST."

*rimshot*

I'll be here all week, folks. Try the veal. Remember, tip your waitress. ^_^

Ed Becerra
Posted by Ed Becerra 2003-12-22 12:24:18 AM||   2003-12-22 12:24:18 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 So the 'Servant of Allah' adult diapers are done? Damn, I had some shares, hoping for a big payout.
Posted by 4thInfVet 2003-12-22 1:17:33 AM||   2003-12-22 1:17:33 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Nix Koranflakes as well, I suppose...

-Vic
Posted by Vic  2003-12-22 1:18:39 AM||   2003-12-22 1:18:39 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Prophet's Beard shampoo LMAO!
Posted by Rafael 2003-12-22 2:04:32 AM||   2003-12-22 2:04:32 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Non-Euro cultures have some ideas about brand names we would find odd. As y'all point out, religious brand names might not fly so well here.

Brand names translated from Japanese often come across to us as incredibly banal. Conversely, English-language brand names (and there's a lot) chosen for Japanese products for their market often come across to us as incredibly ludicrous. Culture. Obviously the Japs don't see it that way or they wouldn't use those names.

Shame the Saudis felt constrained not to give examples. Might have given insight why they are so offended. We're not the target audience.
Posted by Glenn (not Reynolds)  2003-12-22 2:26:36 AM||   2003-12-22 2:26:36 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 an article in the Christian Science Monitor

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1222/p17s01-wmgn.html

reports on a study by an academic that does not attribute slow economic growth on Islam. Reports like this show how idiotic said acedemic is:

here is part of the article
--------
Is Islam a drag on economic growth?.. A long line of scholars has blamed the relative poverty of Muslims today on their religious beliefs.
But economist Marcus Noland maintains that this long-standing view is wrong.

"There is nothing inherent about these [Islamic] societies that they have to perform poorly," says the economist with the Institute for International Economics in Washington. "If anything, Islam promotes growth.... There may be undue pessimism about the prospects of these countries."
---------------
I wonder who funds the Institute for International Economics?


Posted by mhw 2003-12-22 8:29:37 AM||   2003-12-22 8:29:37 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 Does this mean I should sell my shares in Bethlehem Steel?;)
Posted by Spot  2003-12-22 8:50:22 AM||   2003-12-22 8:50:22 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 beat me to it Spot!!
Posted by liberalhawk 2003-12-22 9:26:28 AM||   2003-12-22 9:26:28 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 Bethlehem Steel was named for the home town of its original corporate headquarters, Bethlehem PA. That town was so named by Moravian settlers prior to the Revolutionary War.

FWIW. [smile]
Posted by rkb  2003-12-22 9:27:08 AM||   2003-12-22 9:27:08 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 and Bethlehem Steel is now a subsidiary of the Intl Steel Group, which itself is, I think, in some form of receivership. Kind of like how the city of Bethlehem is part of the Paleo Auth which is in continuing subsidized bankrupcy.
Posted by mhw 2003-12-22 10:09:16 AM||   2003-12-22 10:09:16 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 Well, there goes my idea for the "Osama's Mama" line of adult incontinence undergarments.
Posted by BH  2003-12-22 10:28:59 AM||   2003-12-22 10:28:59 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 mhw: I wonder who funds the Institute for International Economics?
Your mocking tone insinuates whomever is not getting much for their buck. Tsk.

BH: How would you plug that? I'm trying to visualize billboard art but keep coming up with schemes that would offend NAACP.
Posted by Glenn (not Reynolds)  2003-12-22 10:43:36 AM||   2003-12-22 10:43:36 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 Glenn - not Reynolds

from the IIE website: The Institute’s annual budget is about $7 million. Support is provided by a wide range of charitable foundations, private corporations, and individuals...

the board of directors is:
Peter G. Peterson, Chairman
* Anthony M. Solomon, Chairman, Executive Committee

Leszek Balcerowicz
Conrad Black
Bill Bradley
Chen Yuan
George David
* Jessica Einhorn
Stanley Fischer
Jacob A. Frenkel
Maurice R. Greenberg
* Carla A. Hills
Nobuyuki Idei
Karen Katen
W. M. Keck II
Lee Kuan Yew
Donald F. McHenry
Minoru Murofushi
Paul O'Neill
Hutham Olayan
James W. Owens
Frank Pearl
Karl Otto Pöhl
* Joseph E. Robert, Jr.
David Rockefeller
David M. Rubenstein
Renato Ruggiero
Edward W. Scott, Jr.
George Soros
Lawrence H. Summers
Peter D. Sutherland
Jean Claude Trichet
Laura D’Andrea Tyson
Paul A. Volcker
* Dennis Weatherstone
Edward E. Whitacre, Jr.
Marina v.N. Whitman
Ernesto Zedillo


mostly left wing a few right wing; all free trade types; generally sane people, some a bit unhinged

just goes to show you that if you put some Phd's, captains of finance and other fine people together, you may still fund studies that are worthless
Posted by mhw 2003-12-22 11:01:14 AM||   2003-12-22 11:01:14 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 Correct if i'm wrong but weren't there a lotta Ph.d's who supported the global warming scam at Kyoto?
Posted by Barry 2003-12-22 11:24:42 AM||   2003-12-22 11:24:42 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 "You don't use Prophet Pomade? I insult your mustache!"
Posted by Dar  2003-12-22 1:10:00 PM||   2003-12-22 1:10:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 mhw: Well, you were the one that asked the question, then you answered it, very well. I'll admit to not recognizing a lot of those names. David M. Rubenstein; I remember name from PBS funding blurbs back before I quit watching television completely. Rockefeller and Soros, and -- Zedillo? Oh, yeah, forgot you can't be selected King President of Mexico without office-perk coming away rich enough to get your name dropped in expensive places and do worldwide philanthropy. Nevertheless, the kind of output you've unearthed may explain something of the dismal performance of NGO's in WOTLand.
Posted by Glenn (not Reynolds)  2003-12-22 1:25:28 PM||   2003-12-22 1:25:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Barry, if you look carefully at the Phd's that sculpted the final version of Koyoto, you will notice that few of them hold dotorates in anything remotely scientific.

If Saudi Arabia doesn't plan to capitalize economically on anything religious, I wonder how they plan to invigorate their tourism industry. Will all hotel accomodations in Mecca and Medina now be complementary?

Speaking of Bethlehem, saw something on the news last night about the slumping economy in David's town. Things are so bad that many young Christians from families that have lived in Bethlehem for hundereds of years are now leaving. Yasser Arafat has addressed a document to all travel agents not to sell plane tickets to young people unless they held an education visa for the country that they wanted tickets to. Sounds like his hostages are escaping.
Posted by Super Hose  2003-12-22 2:19:29 PM||   2003-12-22 2:19:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 super hose
1. re SaudiArabia; the Saudis have managed to make the 12th month pilgramage (aka the Hadj)into a net zero or even loser financially for the national treasury by strictly controlling merchandizing, having to pay extra security expenses, having royal families get a cut of the motel bills, bribing the local Meccan imans to say nice things about the royal family, etc.
2. The Paleo Authority is trying to extort money from the networks for covering the xmas events in Bethlehem this year. see: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/374357.html
Posted by mhw 2003-12-22 2:32:56 PM||   2003-12-22 2:32:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 Interesting, but terribly-written article in Tech Central Station about the relationship between government-enforced morality and tyranny that fits well with the comments in this article. Basically, the author says that there are two bases for law: "right" and "good". "Right" is the equal evaluation of expectations - I.E., basically "contracts", while "Good" is "moral" - 'this is what things SHOULD be'. GOOD can only be imposed, since each person's idea of what that means may differ. RIGHT is basically what the Founding Fathers considered the basis of government - and why they established that religion could never be either imposed, or expelled. Right requires a moral people to keep people willing to negotiate. GOOD imposes. ISLAM demands that people follow certain (7th century) ideas about morality, which is IMPOSED by the Clergy. Since the only way you can impose anything is by force, Islamic nations rapidly degenerate into tyrannies. Only secular governments can establish legal systems based on individual contractural behavior (Right).

The only problem is, there is no way to legislate morality without totally destroying individual rights. This leads to stagnation and collapse. This is why Islamic nations would be a total failure without the oil, and why the Middle East wasn't a player in world politics from about 1650 through 1945.
Posted by Old Patriot  2003-12-22 11:50:10 PM|| [http://users.codenet.net/mweather/default.htm]  2003-12-22 11:50:10 PM|| Front Page Top

00:23 Old Patriot
00:16 Old Patriot
00:07 Old Patriot
23:58 Bomb-a-rama
23:55 Old Patriot
23:52 Bomb-a-rama
23:50 Old Patriot
23:37 4thInfVet
23:35 Old Patriot
23:23 Old Patriot
23:19 Old Patriot
23:17 .com
23:15 Old Patriot
23:12 .com
22:59 .com
22:56 badanov
22:55 .com
22:52 .com
22:48 .com
22:46 .com
22:38 Fred
22:19 Larry Everett
21:56 Ron
21:52 ed









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com