Sunday, November 19, 2006

If you want it, earn it

Jay Tea blogged on Wizbang On Friday, I tossed off a quick piece that ended with a link to the number of Nobel Prizes that have been awarded to Jews. I'm not sure why I chose that particular yardstick, but I did.

I found it an interesting piece of information, and in fact bookmarked it for possible future use.
Later that day, Ken McCracken of (with whom I was privileged to co-blog over there for about a month or so) wrote a piece that took the same notion, and ran like hell with it. Showing the research chops and insight that are required to share a page with Will Franklin, Ken found an interview with an Iraqi "researcher" who is extremely upset with the disproportionate numbers of Nobel Prizes awarded to Jews vs. Muslims.
167 Jews vs 4 Arabs, and all four of them are considered traitors to Islam.
According to what Samir 'Ubeid says, the Nobel Prizes should not be awarded strictly on merit. They should have quotas on them, to make sure that all peoples, all faiths, are appropriately represented.
Accoreding to the Nobel Foundation Every year since 1901 the Nobel Prize has been awarded for achievements in physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, literature and for peace. The Nobel Prize is an international award administered by the Nobel Foundation in Stockholm, Sweden. In 1968, Sveriges Riksbank established The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, founder of the Nobel Prize. Each prize consists of a medal, personal diploma, and a cash award. In other words, as the old Smith Barney ads used to say: We make money the old-fashioned way. We EARN it. If Arabs think they are not getting enough Nobel Prizes, perhaps they should stop spending so much time killing Jews (not likely to get them the Nobel Peace Prize), but study, and develop something worthwhile. I know they developed the Arabic Number System, but they did that before they invented Islam. What have they done RECENTLY that would earn them a Nobel Prize.
I suppose to him, that in 1989 the Prize should not have gone to J. Michael Bishop and Harold E. Varmus for their work in retroviral oncogenes (which has something fairly important to do with cancer research), but perhaps to Dr. Mohammed Durka-Durka Jihad for his ground-breaking work in the application of electrical stimuli to various portions of the human anatomy, and its consequent effect on human memory. ("If we apply the proper voltage to the genitalia for the right amount of time, the subject suddenly remembers their treasonous acts and will freely admit to them.") Perhaps Dr. Jihad can split the prize with Dr. Bishop, since he's not Jewish.
Arabs are seldom willing to split anything with anyone. They certainly are not willing to accept the two state solution in the middle east, for example. They are greedy basterds who want it all for themselves, even though they have not earned it.
You know, we've pretty much trashed the notion of "social promotion" in our schools, and are moving back towards actually requiring the students to achieve measurable progress before they advance out of a grade. But like a bad penny, it seems that this idea has not died the death it so richly deserves, but has merely moved on. I have very little respect for the "soft" prizes,
I agree, particularly the Nobel Peace Prize, which is usually awarded as a jab against the USA.
but the "hard" ones -- especially chemistry, physics, and medicine -- really ought to stand out. And Samir 'Ubeid's notion of cheapening them just so his (and, by extension, his fellow Muslims') feelings don't get bruised just irritates the hell out of me.
Their feelings seem very easily bruised.
You want a Nobel Prize, Mr. 'Ubeid? Feel free to earn one.


Zsa Zsa said...

They are all greedy and unwilling to share. That is so spot on. You have no idea how accurate that statement is, OR maybe you do? Beautiful post! Thanks!...

Don Singleton said...

I've got a pretty good idea. The US was very generous in the help they gave Indonesia after the Tsunami, yet see what they are up to now. The US was very generous in the help they gave Pakistan after their earthquake, yet most of the country hates us.

When was the last time a Muslim country gave significant aid to the victims of a non Muslim country (or even another Muslim country) after a national disaster.

Is charity not significant in Islam?

It is only one of the Five Pillars of Islam: Obligatory (religious) almsgiving (Zakat) - which is generally 2.5% of the total savings for a rich man working in trade or industry, and 10% or 20% of the annual produce for agriculturists. This money or produce is distributed among the poor.

And where is the justice in that. A rish industralist is expected to pay 2.5%, while a poor farmer is expected to pay 10% to 20%.

They are greedy bastards.

Isiah Schwartz said...

The arabic number system was invented in india no by the arabs

Don Singleton said...

The arabic number system was invented in india not by the arabs

The page you linked to refers to it as Hindu-Arabic numeral system, but the key thing that made the system work was the invention of a character for zero, and as the page you linked to indicates The use of zero in positional systems dates to about this time, representing the final step to the system of numerals we are familiar with today. The reason explaining the shape Arabic numerals takes today is due to the House of Wisdom in ancient Baghdad (Iraq). There, they used the concept of counting angles to craft symbols for the decimal numbers one through nine with the numeral for zero denoted by a circle which of course contains no angles [5].

The first dated and undisputed inscription showing the use of zero at is at Gwalior, dating to 876 AD. There were, however, Indian precursors from about 500 AD, positional notations without a zero, or with the word kha indicating the absence of a digit. It is, therefore, uncertain whether the crucial inclusion of zero as the tenth symbol of the system should be attributed to the Indians, or if it is due to Al-Khwarizmi or Al-Kindi of the House of Wisdom.

Why not be generous and say that they invented the zero, and thus positional notation. They still have not done much since then.