Debate on Rima Fakih

Rima Fakih, and American citizen from Michigan, recently won the Miss USA pageant. This wouldn't be a big deal, except she is Lebanese and from a Muslim family. Some Americans are protesting a Muslim winning a beauty pageant, alleging that her victory was politically-motivated. There has also been backlash from Muslims. I don't understand any of it. A beautiful woman won a beauty pageant. Who cares? Well, these people do, and there was a debate about whether Islam allows Muslims to enter beauty pageants. Technically, the Koran specifically requires women only to cover their bosoms and private parts in public, which all the beauty pageant contestants did. Unfortunately, many Muslims are confused about the minimum requirements of their own religion, which has created many problems worldwide. More below:

Z: these contests don't have anything to do with our faith. There's nothing Islamic about what she's representing. I'm just saying, why don't we provide Muslim women professors with an opportunity to be crowned so we avoid the same misrepresentation of Muslim women in the media? Why do men applaud women who reveal their bodies and then pray 5x a day?

M: I don't view Islam as an "either/or" religion when it comes to beauty and educational pedigrees. Also, there is nothing in Islam that forbids the showing of physical beauty. To exhibit physical beauty, one must demonstrate one's physical form. Therefore, demonstrating one's form cannot be unIslamic b/c Islam is not against physical beauty.

You are questioning the degree of the demonstration, which is fine, but you've automatically lost credibility once you make a statement like, "There's nothing Islamic about what she's representing." Is she immodest? Perhaps. But since modesty is an ambiguous term and in the eye of the beholder, we must be more careful before we issue broad statements about what is Islamic or unIslamic. After all, Islam is not like the Catholic Church, where all Muslims must heed a particular interpretation coming from one source (i.e., the Vatican). As such, Muslims ought to recognize that no individual Muslim has authority over what is Islamic or unIslamic, and such debates must be settled by quoting the Koran, which is oftentimes ambiguous and open to interpretation.

Z: if the lines of modesty are ambiguous to you, it speaks volumes about your confusion of Islamic principles. I'm not comparing Islam to other faiths. I'm merely stating that its followers of the faith who are misrepresenting the religion and the media picks up on that. No one said physical beauty is a sin.

M: the Koran asks women to guard their "private parts" and their bosoms and then immediately references husbands and fathers. A hijab covers a woman's private parts and bosom--but so does a one-piece bikini.
The Koran also asks women to act modestly when outside the presence of their husbands or fathers; however, one husband or father may view a bikini as immodest, while another may have no issue with it. Therefore, the Koran seems to be asking women to take actions to minimize jealousy in their husbands and maximize harmony in their families, which requires a case-by-case analysis of the "lines of modesty." I hope this makes sense. Also, note that Muslim-majority countries like Dubai, Iran, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Saudi Arabia have vastly different rules on modesty, which should tell you right away that there isn't any singular interpretation of the Koran's definition of modesty.

Z: as you know Muslims were known for their good character, honesty, and intellect which magnified the beauty of their physical state. This is not an issue of interpretations, the reason I brought this is up is because we need to be thoughtful in our approach about what we're supporting. I'm sure that there are many women who don't practice their faith but wear the hijab because of the rules of their government/families. In a country such as ours where there are no rules about what's immodest, shouldn't we harness the best of our faith and freedom and question the values set forth?

Ask how many of these pageant winners have stalkers and live in fear of their lives. Ask how many of these pageant participants have eating disorders. Ask how many of these pageant winners spend their wealth and time in combating the problems of the world long before they entered a pageant. I see this as further ridicule...it's definitely not praise. It's saying, "look how we can brainwash your women into thinking we accept them for their religion and beauty" or "this should make up for all the bombs we're dropping on the innocent people (in all the Muslim countries you didn't mention)."

M: Connecting categories like beauty and modesty to stalkers and bombs in one leap indicates a fantastic imagination. I don't know anyone who looks at Ms. Fakih and thinks that her award makes up for the death of innocent civilians, so to suggest such a connection is troubling. It's like referencing 9/11 every time a Muslim is stopped at the airport in 2010--it's a tenuous connection at best and ultimately fails to support a conclusion or argument.

F: your statement "there is nothing in Islam that forbids the physical showing of beauty" is true. A woman may ONLY expose herself to other women or to another maharam. This is in the Qu'ran, and not up for debate. Modesty may be an "ambiguous" term, but strutting around in a two piece in front of eight million people is not ambiguous at all. There really is no gray area here.

Also, for anyone to equate wearing a hijab to wearing a two-piece is absolutely illogical. Are you saying that God is ok with either apparel? Clearly the two are not similar. It is either this or that, but not both, because both are contradictions to one another, and we all know contradictions are illogical. Wearing a bikini and wearing a hijab are not the same, so they will not be looked upon the same in God's eyes.

In the Qu'ran, 24:31 says, "And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty..." Come on now, we are being asked to lower our gaze!! This is such a modest and subtle gesture. From this you are concluding that it is ok to wear a two piece bikini? You are unsure whether wearing a bikini contradicts this aforementioned verse? what possible argument can someone have? Surely this is illogical right? Why would God put that in the finite book, and then be ok, with naked women on a stage. I-l-l-o-g-i-c-a-l.

33:59 goes on to say, “O Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters AND the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them." Yes, draw cloaks around the body, to prevent from giving the woman a discernible shape. You know how girls like to wear things real tight these days?

Whatever Miss Fakih does is between her and her God. It doesn't bother me one bit she calls herself Muslim. It's all good, because the rules, and regulations are all there. We have Taliban and extremist blowing people to bits. A girl strutting her goods on stage is the least of our concerns.

But rules, will be rules. And right will always be different from wrong.

M: First, did you really just admit that "modesty" may be an ambiguous term and then in the next breath allege no "gray area"? (I hope you see the problem there.)

Second, there is no "contradiction" between a bikini and a hijab. Both are articles of clothing, and articles of clothing can't contradict anything. It's like saying that a t-shirt and a sweater contradict each other, which makes no sense.

Also, you use the word, "naked." Ms. Fakih was never naked. She covered her "bosom" and her private parts--the only two areas of the body specifically cited in the verses at issue--so she complies with the Koranic sections that are most specific on modesty.

Since there is no singular authority on Koranic interpretation, all you can say is that your own interpretation of Islam forbids wearing a bikini in public--that's it. You cannot demand only one interpretation for an ambiguous term--this isn't like eating pork or drinking alcohol, which are clearly prohibited in the Koran.

Your other Koranic quotations are also open to interpretation. As I am sure you agree, almost every single Koranic section that discusses modesty and dress does so within the context of family members and husbands, so a reasonable interpretation cannot ignore the variable opinions of a woman's family. Why specifically include husbands and family members in the modesty verses if their opinions--which may vary greatly--are insignificant?

You also take the "cloak" verse out of context. First, a cloak refers to an outer garment that was popular in that time--it doesn't necessarily mean an actual cloak, just an outer garment. Second, take a closer look at the verses. It is discussing a time when women travel abroad or into lands where they will not be recognized as Muslims and may encounter problems with disrespectful men. Within context, the "cloak" verses appear to suggest simple, inexpensive ways for women to feel respected when they travel, i.e., to "be recognized and not harassed" and "not given trouble." There is nothing in the verses that requires women to wear particular outer garments when they travel. The verses merely encourage a woman to identify herself as a Muslim when she travels to foreign lands so she can avoid being bothered by disrespectful men. Such identification may be done in several ways, such as wearing a symbol of Islam (similar to wearing a cross if one is Christian). Of course I do not claim my interpretation is the only interpretation, but I do try to read verses in context.

F: So since there is no singular authority on the interpretation of the Qu'ran, you in your heart believe that it is acceptable from women in Islam to wear bikini's in public? You, with all your given faculty believe, that this is the message that God was striving to send to us? Just because the concept of female clothing is vague and open to a variety of interpretations, does not include the possibility that wearing such a thing in public is correct.

I was not sure what you were trying to say regarding the husband and father. All I was trying to say that a woman's clothing maybe more lax in front of maharam.

As for the cloak/garment verse 33:59, it says that women should cover them selves with this cloak (or garment) to avoid being harassed by men. All other things equal, who do you think has a higher probability of being harassed, a covered woman or one in a bikini? I think the latter. Basically this verse is trying to avoid having the woman attract unnecessary attention. Correct? Women should be clothed in ways that do not attract men's attention. Regardless if they are traveling, not traveling, are in the market, or anywhere in the public.

I'm going to revert back to 24:31. You say that a woman who covers her vitals, as a two piece does, is meeting the minimum requirements. Correct? Then how come this verse talks about a very subtle gesture, that is the lowering of the gaze. Can you compare the lowering of the gaze to wearing a bikini? Are these not on the opposite sides of the spectrum? Are these not contradictory. The Qu'ran advocates the woman should humbly lower her gaze, while you are saying that a woman in a bikini is not trespassing any rule. Can you please reconcile this blatant disparity?

24:31 also has an interesting thing that it mentions. It says for the woman to " not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment." Looks like to me that holy God is talking about another sense in addition to sight.....hearing. This is the extent to which women in Islam are instructed to behave. That they shouldn't even walk with a heavy foot. So again, when the bikini wearing in public is factored, how do you reconcile this disparity?

You know what the sweet thing about Islam is? It cuts the problem off at the root. Drinking causes problems, so guess what, no drinking AT ALL. Drugs causes problems, guess what, no smoking weed AT ALL. Stealing causes problems, guess what, no stealing AT ALL. Even a dollar. If everyone was allowed to drink "a little bit", or smoke weed "once in a while" then the entire system would crumble. There would always be one guy who drank too much and plowed his car into a group of kids, or a guy who fried his brain over drugs.

Islam, quite candidly is a religion of limits.

M: this will be my last response to you, b/c I've already studied this issue in detail and have explained most of my position. As I said before, in my heart, I believe Islam is not rigid--the different Islamic cultures across the world prove it--and we cannot ignore the varied opinions of family members when interpreting the modesty verses. Such verses almost always refer to women's "husbands, their fathers, their husband's fathers, their sons, their husband's sons, their brothers or their brother's sons, or their sister's sons." These references are consistent and numerous, indicating that the intent of the modesty rules is to promote marital and familial harmony. Each father and husband has different preferences, so a bikini may make one husband jealous while another man may not mind. The only rule we know for sure is that women ought to cover their "bosoms" and "private parts"--anything beyond that is subject to interpretation.

You don't really offer anything new in your latest response. "Lowering the gaze" means women shouldn't look at forbidden things, just like men shouldn't be looking at forbidden things. The "gaze" verse talks about self-restraint, but each individual has unique boundaries. One woman may not be able to handle looking at a man's ankles, while another may be able to look at Fabio and maintain self-restraint. Again, we are back to a case-by-case analysis.

The "stamping feet" verse warns against showing off "ornaments," i.e., expensive jewelry, not body parts. Indeed, near the same place that "ornaments" is used, the Koran specifically cites "bosom" and "private parts," so it appears we are referring to something other than physical areas. In conclusion, if you think Islam has limits, wonderful--you can set up a mosque and preach however you like, but the minute you argue that Islam has only one way or one interpretation, you have crossed into Catholicism or some other religion.

Z: In reference to verse 24:31 about a woman to " not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment." It is not only referring to jewelry worn around ankles that make sounds to attract a man's attention, but as a woman, it's also referring to the movement of the chest as one walks. God created us all in the best of forms and provided us beauty as well as intellect. Our ancestors were known for their character because of how they used their intellect and that in itself magnified their physical attributes.

Clearly Ms. Fakih possess physical beauty, and no one is arguing that...but I just wish to learn more about her intellect. She has great potential to be a positive role model and I pray she gains the strength to overcome the whirlwind of the life she's chosen.

Would you congratulate your sister, mother, aunt, cousin, wife or daughter if any of them were following Ms. Fakih's lead?

M: if a woman in my family decided to participate in a beauty contest, the appropriate discussion would take place privately. I don't see anything in the Koran that requires a non-family member to judge another Muslim's modesty.

Generally speaking, in Islam, both the wife and the husband are tied together--or yoked together--and both must avoid harmful and immodest behavior. The definition of immodest behavior is based on input from both the husband and the wife. The wife can ask her husband to dress conservatively if such dress conforms to her definition of modesty, and vice-versa. This is why it is important to know the expectations of the person you are marrying. The intent of the modesty rules is to avoid jealousy on both sides, which helps promote a peaceful marriage.

So if you really look at the Koran in context, the intent of the modesty rules is, "Don't tick off your spouse." Thus, outside the house, the wife gets to ask the husband to dress in ways that make her feel comfortable, and the husband gets to ask his wife to dress in ways that make him comfortable. Such preferences are expressed in most marriages anyway, e.g., the wife buys the husband new clothes, throws away old shirts, lays out what she wants him to wear, etc. I've heard Christian husbands refuse to go out if the wife is wearing something too risque, and Christian dads complain about their daughters' clothing, so this issue isn't an "Islamic thing."

The Koran anticipates these marital and familial problems and tries to fix them ahead of time. In real life, women tend to become the focus of clothing/modesty discussions b/c most women are attracted to men who dress up, not down, but the opposite is true for women. At the end of the day, if you marry someone reasonable, modesty and clothing preferences won't be an issue.

Wisdom from Charlie Munger

Many people know about Warren Buffett, but not enough people know about his right-hand man, Charlie Munger. See here for Munger's 1994 lesson on "Elementary, Worldly Wisdom As It Relates To Investment Management and Business":

"If people tell you what you really don't want to hear, that's unpleasant--there's an almost automatic reaction of antipathy. You have to train yourself out of it. It isn't foredestined that you have to be this way. But you will tend to be this way if you don't think about it."

"I think the reason we get into such idiocy in investment management is best illustrated by a story that I tell about the guy who sold fishing tackle. I asked him, 'My God, they're purple and green. Do fish really take these lures?' And he said, 'Mister, I don't sell to fish.'"

Also, see here for more "Mungerisms" and my brief meeting with Mr. Munger.

Joe Queenan on the Money

Joe Queenan has perfectly encapsulated the mood of our times. See WSJ, 5/15/10, "A Lament for the Class of 2010":

Never mind that in order to pay back the $200,000 it's going to cost you to go to law school, you'll need to land one of those plum legal jobs at Goldman Sachs or AIG or one of those other firms that are no longer hiring because they owe so much to the lawyers they already did hire to defend them from lawsuits brought by the government's lawyers, public prosecutors who only took those jobs because Goldman Sachs and AIG weren't hiring. Good luck getting your parents to pay for that one...

Today, even the idiots have college degrees. And the idiots have seniority.

This is what happens when educational standards decline, and high schools and colleges become diploma mills. Until we add law, symbolic logic, and economics to our required curriculum, starting from elementary school, our current state of affairs will not change. I have met too many adults with degrees and high school diplomas who lack a basic understanding of subjects essential to a functioning democratic republic, such as state vs. federal governments, taxes, supply-and-demand, and the potential dangers of executive power.

Next are two questions that will show most of you that your high school education was inadequate:

1. Which parts of government most impact your life on a daily basis? Federal, state, presidential, judicial, etc.? Obama, Reid, the school board, etc.?

2. What functions do cities provide their residents, and what is usually the most significant expense in a city's budget?

Babies, Morality, and God

In "The Moral Life of Babies" (May 9, 2010, NYT, Paul Bloom, see here), the author discusses babies and their sense of innate justice. Below is a description of one of the studies used to determine baby behavior:

[W]e tested 8-month-olds by first showing them a character who acted as a helper (for instance, helping a puppet trying to open a box) and then presenting a scene in which this helper was the target of a good action by one puppet and a bad action by another puppet. Then we got the babies to choose between these two puppets. That is, they had to choose between a puppet who rewarded a good guy versus a puppet who punished a good guy. Likewise, we showed them a character who acted as a hinderer (for example, keeping a puppet from opening a box) and then had them choose between a puppet who rewarded the bad guy versus one who punished the bad guy.

The results were striking. When the target of the action was itself a good guy, babies preferred the puppet who was nice to it. This alone wasn’t very surprising, given that the other studies found an overall preference among babies for those who act nicely. What was more interesting was what happened when they watched the bad guy being rewarded or punished. Here they chose the punisher. Despite their overall preference for good actors over bad, then, babies are drawn to bad actors when those actors are punishing bad behavior.

The babies rewarded the "good" puppet by giving it a treat. This experiment reminded me of C.S. Lewis's book, The Problem of Pain. Lewis, a former atheist turned Christian, argues that pain and guilt must come from God (or some innately programmed code placed by a programmer) because even at an early age, we have feelings that come too early to be explained away by socialization.

Another way to review Lewis's ideas is by examining the problem of a conscience. Most of us, from a very early age, have a conscience that produces guilt and pleasure. Where does a two-year-old child's conscience come from? Lewis contends that the best explanation for a young child having guilt is God, because it is unlikely that biology can produce such feelings in someone so young. Today, we talk about genes for diabetes, cancer, and even homosexuality, but few reputable scientists have tried to argue for a "guilt gene." Of course, there may be genes that make humans more social and more attuned to social networks, but such genes would presumably need more catalysts than a mere two years of experience, much of it spent in a restricted space.

Aquinas, Pascal, and other philosophers have submitted their pro-God arguments, but C.S. Lewis's musings on the problem of guilt/pain don't get enough credit in philosophy classes or general theology discussions. That's a shame, because Lewis has presented an argument that anyone, merely by studying a child, can understand. Reducing theology to child's play might seem overly simplistic, but I see nothing wrong with effective arguments.

Where I Get Schooled

How are stocks up so much? There's been no serious financial reform; no withdrawal from various wars; no fiscal fix for public employee pensions or private sector pension shortfalls; and still 10%+ unemployment in major cities. The S&P 500 was only 831 when President Obama took office...stocks are up 41% since his inauguration. Are President Obama and the Dems really that good?

In response, one friend mentioned America's 0% interest rates, which help banks but hurt savers. The best answer, however, came from a former high school classmate:

From the corporate side, it seems fairly plain to me. There's been no financial reform to tighten screws on corporations. The government is still spending a lot of money on wars. The debt, while burdensome, hasn't caused any major calamities (so far). High unemployment means lower payroll costs. Add a very low fed rate on top of this and it looks like a very favorable business climate. Even if revenues are sluggish due to low consumer spending, margins are probably up.

Thanks to Andrew N. for schooling me.

Note: when I posted my comment above on Facebook, the S&P 500 was 1171 and the Dow was 10,896.

Some Snippets from Recent Reading

From Milton Friedman, on death by a thousand taxes:

We are not going to vote anyone out of office because he imposes a $3-a-year burden on us.

From Nicole Gelinas, City Journal Spring 2010, on municipal bankruptcies:

State governments can't legally declare bankruptcy to escape debt: the federal bankruptcy code doesn't cover them, and they can't write their own bankruptcy laws because the Constitution reserves that power for the federal government. Cities, towns, and counties, meanwhile, can file for bankruptcy only if their state governments allow it, and more than half of the states don't. Moreover, federal law requires eligible cities and towns to meet a strict standard for insolvency.

From James Madison, on power:

All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree.

Google's Annual Shareholder Meeting (2010)

Google held its annual shareholder meeting on May 13, 2010. Google offers shareholders a free lunch every year. The picture above shows the kind of food available (in case you're wondering, yes, I did stuff my face). I really enjoyed the rice and chocolate eclairs.

Google typically posts a video of its annual meeting on YouTube as well as a transcript prepared by a certified court reporter, so there's plenty of information about the meeting available to the public. (See here for another review.)

CEO Eric Schmidt briefly mentioned Google's great results, saying "All is well after a year of great turmoil." During the meeting, Mr. Schmidt showed a fun commercial for Chrome called "Chrome Speed Tests," which highlighted the web browser's incredible speed.

I thanked Larry Page for showing up this year and asked him what he thought was the next "big thing." Mr. Page said that Google Translate is going to be a game-changer. The two-thirds of the world's population not yet online will greatly benefit from fluid translation services, which can be used in telephones and other mobile devices.

CEO Schmidt mentioned Google's plan to enable people to text-message in their native language and have it automatically translated into the receiver's native language. Although most of the world's populations do not have ready internet access or computers, many people have mobile phones, even in so-called "Third World" countries, so an effective translation service would connect almost the entire world together. Later, I thought about how an automatic translation service could preserve some little-used languages, which in turn could help preserve a small country's or people's cultural heritage. I also think it would be wonderful if a small business-owner who speaks only English could sell products directly to someone in China or other countries. Down the road, if Google creates a program that translates spoken languages, American business-owners could more easily hire and sell to immigrants who may have difficulty speaking perfect English. In addition, older immigrants--who may have difficulty learning and speaking English--would be able to communicate better with their grandchildren and the general public.

One side note: I thanked Mr. Page for attending this year and said I was feeling sentimental about previous meetings, where the atmosphere was more casual and he and Sergey would be dressed in jeans. Mr. Page immediately gave props to CEO Schmidt, touching him on the arm and reminding me that CEO Schmidt was also present at previous meetings. CEO Schmidt then joked that he also wore jeans at the previous meetings. I thought it was a great moment, because sometimes, founders and successors don't get along (e.g., Accuray, Inc.) and besides, who doesn't love a billionaire bromance?

Google had a product demo section, where I discovered sites.google.com. I coach youth basketball, and I've always wanted to create a website for my teams, but I've never had the time. Well, Google has already done it for me and other coaches. If you go to Google's "sites" page, you will find a template called "Soccer Team" that can be used to post game times, agendas, and pictures. It's a ready-made website that community centers, YMCAs, and private clubs can use to help streamline programs and help their players keep in touch.

There were some embarrassing moments for Google. Google received multiple complaints about the responsiveness of its Investor Relations department. One shareholder complained that Google took three weeks to return her phone call. Another shareholder said she was unaware of the annual meeting because she never received a proxy or an email notification and made it to the meeting only because a friend told her about it.

After the meeting, several shareholders went to the front to speak with CFO Patrick Pichette about their issues receiving proxy materials and notices. Mr. Pichette was very patient and explained that Google may be slower to respond to individual phone calls than other companies because of its engineering mindset. He said that Google was an engineering company, and engineers tend to think that if something is done properly, all the information is available online and there is no need to pick up the phone.

I don't understand why the company's CFO was handling these kinds of complaints. Typically, routine shareholder complaints would be handled by Investor Relations, not the CFO. At the same time, perhaps CEO Schmidt didn't feel comfortable referring shareholders to Investor Relations because shareholders were complaining about that particular department.

I've raised issues with the way Google's Investor Relations Department treats shareholders before. For one thing, Google doesn't permit any questions or comments during the shareholder proposal portion of the meeting. It allows a shareholder to set forth a proposal and then moves directly to a vote. If other shareholders have information or comments about a particular proposal, Google does not allow them to express themselves until after the proposal has been voted on, making comments a moot point. A more reasonable course of action would be to allow comments, but to limit the comments to one minute or less.

After the meeting, I spoke with someone in Google's Investor Relations, and she didn't seem entirely happy to talk to me. Not only that, but she didn't have any business cards on her. Google gets one day a year to interact with individual shareholders, and its Investor Relations employee doesn't have a business card to give shareholders? (At all the other shareholder meetings I've attended, Investor Relations has provided me with a business card if requested and actively encouraged me to follow up on any issues I had.) Outside, I ran into the same Investor Relations representative again, and when I asked her whether she had figured out the source of the problems mentioned by other shareholders, she curtly told me, "There was no problem." So let me get this straight: shareholders don't get notice of the meeting, and Investor Relations doesn't think there is a problem? Really? (By the way, I heard through the grapevine that even some Google employees/shareholders didn't know about the annual meeting until they received an email telling them the cafeteria would be closed due to the meeting.)

In most companies, Investor Relations is an overlooked and underutilized department, and I've never understood why. Investor Relations is the first place shareholders look when they have issues with a company, so if the department is stocked with unprofessional employees, the entire company's reputation suffers.

Some companies have wonderful Investor Relations people. Brocade Communications has a particularly excellent department. Tessera Technologies also has a great department. (Props to Sr. Director of Investor Relations Moriah Shilton, who seems like a consummate professional.)

On the other hand, an inexperienced or unprofessional Investor Relations employee can harm a company's reputation. After all, if a company can't manage to properly execute an annual meeting or treat individual shareholders with respect, you start to wonder what else the company can't handle. For example, at Visa's (V) first annual meeting, an Investor Relations representative demanded my name and personal contact information when I took a picture with the CEO. She then told me I couldn't publish the picture. Well, if a CEO is happy to pose for a picture with a shareholder, why bother the shareholder after the picture is taken? Here I was, at a company's first annual meeting as a publicly traded corporation, and I get accosted SS-style. (So far, no other company's Investor Relations department has demanded my papers.)

One year, at McAfee's (MFE) meeting, which was very short, I picked up some cookies and soda and began eating in the conference room where the annual meeting had been held. The Board of Directors also got some food and sat in the same room and started shooting the breeze. So far, so good, right? Well, McAfee's Investor Relations, apparently concerned about my presence, got up and shooed the entire Board into a different room. God forbid she actually introduce herself or the Board to the one shareholder who decided to show up to the meeting. I briefly attended a British elementary school, and yet, my only experience with a schoolmarm type has been at McAfee. (It's a shame, too, because McAfee's CEO is actually a nice guy.)

It's funny--I've attended McAfee's annual meetings twice, and each time, I think I was the only non-employee there. Yet, each time, the company had large tables of food and drink available. It appears that McAfee's Investor Relations department uses the annual meeting to fatten up the Board and treat non-employee shareholders like lepers. What's even worse is McAfee's competitor, Symantec, runs a great annual meeting and gives shareholders free software or other useful items. If you're a consumer company, why give people an excuse to favor your competition?

Anyway, back to Google. One Google employee seemed to think that shareholders could easily print out proof of ownership of shares and bring that to the meeting for admission. The problem is that you have to own shares as of the "record date" to attend the meeting, and the record date is typically several months prior to the annual meeting. So if shareholders come in with a current printout of their holdings, that wouldn't necessarily entitle them to admission, because they could have bought the shares after the record date. I'm not saying these issues are simple, but why have Investor Relations departments if they can't help ordinary shareholders navigate the increasingly complex world of shareholder proxies and regulations?

Shareholders who have issues with their proxies need to be more pro-active. Many Investor Relations employees don't seem to understand the machinations involved in individual shareholder notices because so much of the work is outsourced. Here's my advice to shareholders who stopped receiving annual meeting notices and proxies in the mail: contact your brokers and tell them you want to elect to receive copies of your proxy materials by mail. You have to actively opt back into the hard copy system if you want paper copies of shareholder materials. After July 1, 2007, companies no longer have to mail you hard copies of proxies and may email you a link to their materials on-line. Unfortunately, with all the online spam, some shareholders may not be getting notices because emails are being diverted into their spam folders.

I will close on a positive note. As most people know, Google offers its employees tons of perks, but I discovered two more of them: on-site washers and dryers and smoothies made-to-order, including a delicious banana/chocolate combination.

It's good to be King, and right now, Google is the King. Long live the King.