People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. Welcome to From On High.

Thursday, December 09, 2004

The Shareholders Can Fix This

Obviously Colgate Palmolive has no public relations department. Otherwise how would this be appearing in the news around the world?

Colgate Executives Get $11,500 a Year for Pet Sitters and Other Perks

By Ellen Simon The Associated Press Published: Dec 7, 2004

NEW YORK (AP) - Colgate-Palmolive Co., which announced Tuesday it is eliminating 4,400 jobs, disclosed in a regulatory filing that many of its top executives and officers are given allowance of up to $11,500 a year to spend on anything from pet sitters to running shoes to karate lessons to movie rentals.

The plan, called "Above and Beyond," was detailed in the consumer product company's quarterly filing in November with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The program has been in place since 1986 and covers 800 executives. (link)

Let me make two quick points.

1. The shareholders of the company need to get rid of every member of its board that allowed this to be approved.

2. Those 800 executives who receive this perk should be ashamed of themselves.

Oh, and lastly, they should thank their lucky stars that none of them work for me because I guarantee you none of them would work for me.

Canadians Must Be Very Proud

Canada has become, over the last decade, a foreign country. I mean a very foreign country. A very liberal foreign country.

I was going to use the word, "permissive," but then I remembered that the Canadian government is doing everything in its ever-expanding power to ban cigarette smoking and the private ownership of firearms. So "liberal" fits much better.

Here's today's bit of idiocy.

Canadian Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gay Marriage

By Beth Duff-Brown Associated Press Writer Published: Dec 9, 2004

TORONTO (AP) - Canada's Supreme Court ruled Thursday that gay marriage was constitutional, a landmark opinion allowing the federal government to call on Parliament to legalize same-sex unions nationwide.

f approved by a majority of the House of Commons, as widely expected, Canada would become the third country to embrace marriage by homosexuals and lesbians. Belgium and the Netherlands are the other two. (link)

The Canadians are emulating the Dutch. They must be very proud.

Why Bush Won

I think Clarence Page has hit on the real reason George W Bush beat John Kerry.
... the Bush side's most expensive and, in my view, most emotionally powerful television ad was a $14.5 million spot by the Progress for America Voter Fund. It features a digital snapshot that ran in the Cincinnati Enquirer of Bush hugging 15-year-old Ashley Faulkner at a campaign stop in Lebanon, Ohio.

He had just heard that she lost her mother in the World Trade Center disaster. Without a word, he stopped and hugged her to his chest. The look on his face is one of genuine grief, empathy and comfort. The ad ends with Ashley Faulkner's voice saying: "He's the most powerful man in the world, and all he wants to do is make sure I'm safe, that I'm OK." (link)

Count me amongst those that thought this exemplified - in a wonderfully tender and heartfelt way - the most profound distinction between the president and Kerry. One candidate was there for us. The other was there for himself alone.

Us won.

Can't Be Toleratin' Them Christians...

This is so depressing:

U.S. communities fail to keep 'Christ' in Christmas


Is America ready for C——-mas? Christmas has been sanitized in schools and public squares, in malls and parades where Santa's OK, Jesus Christ is not. "Jingle Bells" rocks, but forget about "Silent Night."

Some hope to assure the nation that it's all right to say "Merry Christmas."

Champions of creches, live Nativity scenes, Christmas trees, greeting cards and salutations offer compelling evidence that December 25 is still a religious holiday -not a violation of separation of church and state. (link)

How did we get to this point? Christmas may be a violation of separation of church and state. Are you people nuts?

Let me end this once and for all.

1. There is no such separation in the Constitution. Look it up. I don't care what some pointy-headed liberal says it really means, it doesn't say any such thing!

2. If you're worried about the Baptists taking over and forcing you to be washed in the blood of the lamb against your will, don't. We whupped the Nazis. We pounded the Commies into whimpering ninnies. We even have the Democrats at bay. Trust me. We can take care of the Baptists, should they step out of line.

3. Here's a little known fact about our founding fathers. They thoughtfully, purposefully, and carefully established the framework for our governance, one facet of which included the tolerance - even the promotion - of all organized religions. The government was simply prohibited from establishing one religion at the expense of all others.


4. Because a society that has as its foundation the moral teachings of our various faiths is a healthy, vibrant, spirited society, respectful and tolerant of one another. And more loving toward our fellow man, I'd argue.


5. In the end, we go to heaven.

Good To See They Finally See It My Way

In the old west when your horse came up lame and was no longer able to support itself, you took out your six-shooter and put a round into its brainpan (Sorry for using this analogy, Paula.). We now need to do the same thing with the U.N. I've been saying for a long time that the United Nations needs to be put out of its misery. It is feckless, costly beyond measure, and taking up valuable real estate in the heart of Manhattan.

It's good to see that those "in the know" are starting to agree with me.

U.N. Is Deemed A 'Lost Cause,' Annan or Not

BY MEGHAN CLYNE - Staff Reporter of the [New York] Sun December 9, 2004

The United Nations is a lost cause, say some in the diplomatic and foreign policy communities, and despite growing calls for Secretary-General Annan's resignation, removing him won't make a difference in an organization that, in their view, is rotten to the core.

A British author and historian, Paul Johnson, said that Mr. Annan is "working for an impossible organization, and things are bound to go wrong." The principal flaw in the U.N., said Mr. Johnson, is its low threshold for membership. "Any country that declares itself a country - whether it has a proper legal structure, or the rule of law, or not - is allowed to become a member. There are over 100 states [in the U.N.] that are not proper democracies at all." (link)

Of course, just when I begin to think that we are coming to a consensus on the need to dismantle the U.N., some Democrats come along and announce that they think it is, in fact, a worthy organization that could do great good if it weren't for - the USA!
Two former Clinton administration officials, however, said that much of the responsibility for U.N. reform rested with America.

The former U.N. regional administrator in Kosovo, General William Nash, said, "The first thing to do [in reforming the United Nations] is the member states - and at the top of that list is the United States - must make a commitment to provide good people and pay dues on time...and be a useful, vibrant participant in the U.N." America, Mr. Nash said, should be an example to the rest of the U.N., inspiring member states and the organization to improve by paying dues on time and sending its best people to work within the world body. Mr. Nash also lauded the U.N. high panel's report.

Joining him was Lee Feinstein, a former Clinton administration Defense and State Department official. Mr. Feinstein was pleased by the report's defining terrorism so as to condemn any attacks against civilians or noncombatants, even under occupation conditions. This move would denounce suicide bombings and many of the terrorist attacks suffered by American troops in Iraq.

"Hopefully this will help put to rest an issue that has really complicated U.S.-U.N. relationships," Mr. Feinstein said. But "until the U.S. is serious about reforming [the United Nations], it won't," Mr. Feinstein said.
The problem with the United Nations - like every other freeking problem on earth - is our fault.

Good grief.

How To Stop The Hatred

This is an interesting article from the front page of the New York Times this morning:

A New French Headache: When Is Hate on TV Illegal?

Published: December 9, 2004

PARIS, Dec. 8 - The television broadcasts are infused with violence and hate, and the predicament facing the French government is how to stop them.

Al Manar, a popular Arabic channel run by the Hezbollah militia out of Lebanon, beams its anti-American, anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic messages by satellite into thousands of homes, cafes, restaurants and shops throughout France every day.

But a yearlong campaign by the French government to shut down Al Manar has been thwarted by the law.

Last month, France's public broadcasting regulator, the Audio-Visual Higher Council, similar to the Federal Communications Commission, granted Al Manar a license to operate in France as long as it abides by French law. Al Manar had to agree "not to incite hate, violence or discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion or nationality."

Four days later, however, the channel broadcast one report claiming that for years Israel had spread the AIDS virus and other diseases throughout the Arab world, and a second calling for war against Jews and the destruction of Israel. The broadcasts set off new demands by French officials, members of Parliament, academics and commentators to shut down the channel.

"This affects the security of our fragile suburbs, the interest of France, the respect for human rights, even the honor of our country," Ladislas Poniatowski, a senator from Normandy, told a public senate session last week with Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin. "We must stop the broadcasts of Al Manar without delay. I'm demanding it." (link)

I'm no expert when it comes to the freedom of the press in France but the question for Americans is: Should a network like Al Manar be shut down if it is broadcasting hate-filled, anti-semitic diatribes here in the USA?

The short answer is no. As much as we'd all like to say, ""We must stop the broadcasts of Al Manar without delay. I'm demanding it," we would ultimately do more damage than good by starting down the path of eliminating broadcast networks with which we have a problem. Boy, if we started doing that, I could easily come up with a list of my own, starting with CBS.

But there is a better way to destroy these purveyors of hate. Do what the New York Times did. Expose them on the front page of the newspaper, for all the world to see. And denounce them for the lowlife pigs that they are.

That's why I have a deep, abiding respect for our first amendment to the Constitution. It requires that we allow those around the world who hold a profound animus toward others - in this day and age it mostly involves Islamists - to reach into our homes with their hatreds and their prejudices. But our press freedoms also allow for good people to respond to such ill-will being spewed by those on the fringe of modern civilization and to denounce them, and to shine the light of day on their antics.

As long as they only hide in broadcast studios and talk tough, as long as they don't incite people to commit violent acts against others, we need to do our best to tolerate these vermin. And continue to splash their hate-distorted faces on the front page of the New York Times.