The world is apprehended by way of the mind
The world is acted upon by way of the mind
And all good things and bad
Exist in the world by way of the mind.
-Samyutta Nikaya
Loonies Tune Out: The Maple-Syrup Mafia Strikes
This from Chris Cook, of the estimable University of Victoria Gorilla Radio (yes Gee-Oh, as in, our furry friends… or cousins…..or descendants, depending on your evolutionary perspective and level of optimism about the human race)
“For American readers who value and feel protected by the 1st Amendment (right to free speech), it may seem strange that a country would enshrine in law the opposite condition; but Hate Crime legislation in this country is widely supported. Canada is an ethnically, and politically diverse country, consisting of minority populations from the world over, and it was deemed fair-minded to ensure all are protected from the “tyranny of the majority.” But it’s a double-edged sword, making possible an abuse of the statutes, allowing an equally odious tyranny, the stifling of dissent and criticism by a dedicated minority.
Such is, I believe, the case here.
To understand the nature of the B’nai Brith complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, it’s instructive to visit the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC) website; there is explained the goals of the CJC, and their marching orders to regional branches of B’nai Brith in defending Israeli interests. The CJC’s ‘General Expectations of Canada,’ and presumably of Canadian Jews and Christian Zionists loyal to Israel, right or wrong, are to take “constructive interventions against resolutions or motions” made in Canada that:
i) blame only Israel and its policies for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
ii) indict Israel’s legitimate counter-terrorism measures with no reference to or condemnation of Palestinian terrorism.
iii) deny or undermine Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state in the Middle East.
iv) employ existentially threatening language such as referring to Israel as a “racist” or “apartheid” state and apply terms such as [“genocide”(?)], or “ethnic cleansing” to the conflict.
v) are based upon inaccurate media information or Palestinian Authority propaganda.
vi) predetermine the outcome of direct, bilateral negotiations in keeping with UN Resolution 242 and 338 or circumvent such a process.
At the same time, Canada’s delegates must support and encourage efforts at the UNCHR that:
i) will ensure a comprehensive accounting of international human rights situations such that grievous international human rights issues are not ignored or soft-pedalled as a result of a politicized, anti-Israel agenda.
ii) highlight the crippling impact of continuing Palestinian terrorism – which has been explicitly legitimized in the CHR resolutions – on the peace process and on attempts to establish a true human rights regime in the Middle East.
iii) draw attention to the deficiencies within the Palestinian Authority regarding human rights and the building of a viable civil society for the Palestinian people.”
My Comment:
See how this works? Now, not only in Europe (for eg. even in Britain) and in Japan but right on our borders, it’s free speech for me but none for thee. Read more at the Peace and Earth Justice site.
Or as a reader writes:
"Let me get this right...
Its OK for Israel to be a Jewish state, but the US is NOT a Christian state and India is NOT a Hindu state...
just wanted to be sure..I am getting confused...
Is calling someone a RACIST not OK but you can still be one...what about BIGOT?
Or maybe some racists ae better than other racists...
by the way, what IS racisim..I've almost forgotten.
My head hurts..what about baby-killer, is that existentially threatening? Satanic spawn.. or rag-head... or how about Islamicist...or...subhuman vermin scum?
Can I kill you, but nicely? In an entirely politically correct, racially diverse, ethnically sensitive, gender-inclusive sort of way....?
For samples of the kind of offensive speech that would be classified as hate speech, see Citizens Against Racism and Discrimination and think about how far you’d be willing to go in shutting people up. What might the fall out be?
If what someone like Don Imus says is “hate speech,” why isn’t what Rush Limbaugh says too…or Al Sharpton…or any number of other people? Pushed to absurdity, practically everything can be construed as some form of hate of someone or at least of their strongest values. Free speech does have limits – usually when you incite people into some sort of dangerous action during war-time. When you advocate violence or assassination. But that’s not what we have here is it? Offending people shouldn’t be against the law. Sometimes it just might be our civic duty.
Here, folks, is why we need to support the one representative who has consistently fought for free speech, for the Bill of Rights, for constitutionality and the preservation of civil liberties every step of the way – Congressman Ron Paul.
Top secret Osama tape found……
“The following are excerpts from a secret transcript found in a remote cave in Afghanistan from the summer of 2000. The government and the military have kept these contents under wraps, but an anonymous source has leaked them to me. Now, I share with the world what we deserve to know. This report should finally put to rest the questions of why they hate us. It also vindicates 9/11 hero Rudy Giuliani and his scathing attack on that extremist nutball Ron Paul.
Osama: Hey, al-Zawahiri, come here! Look at this!
al-Zawahiri: What is it, Sheik? What are you reading?
Osama: I don’t know, it’s some Satanic document written in English telling all kinds of lies!
al-Zawahiri: Let me see that. Hmmm, I think I read about this in my studies. I think it’s called the constitution or something like that.
Osama: Constitution? And what is all this other ridiculous stuff attached to it?
al-Zawahiri: Those are called the Bill of Rights. They give the Americans certain freedoms.
Osama: Look at this blasphemy! It says that their government can’t make any law about an official state religion. May Allah curse these heretics!…..”
Read all about it at Lew Rockwell.
For interesting stuff about Christian fundamentalism, visit Bill Barnwell’s Blog
And in case, you’re wondering what all the buzz about Ron Paul is, read this
…..and this.
V- Tech Stonewalling on Cho counseling
Even the V-Tech review panel is getting miffed with the ongoing stonewall from Virginia Tech, according to ABC, May 21:
“When members of the Review Panel asked University counsel Kay Heidbreder if Cho had received on-campus treatment or follow-up, she said she did not know. She added that the information was protected under state privacy laws, even after Cho’s death.
Virginia Tech President Charles Steger admitted that the university should have a better answer on the question of whether Cho underwent treatment.
“Just saying we don’t know is not good enough. But we obviously need to follow the law,” Steger told the panel.
Members of the panel expressed frustration at being denied information on Cho’s treatment and follow-up.”
My Comment:
I am going to make a wild guess at what I think this means. As anyone reading this blog knows, I’ve been following this case as closely as possible, since it broke 35 days ago.
In an earlier post, I speculated that the formative event/treatment that drove Cho crazy happened in 2005-06. Not hard to guess. He was a shy guy and didn’t speak much, and he may have been prone to anger. But he didn’t snap until that year.
It’s beginning to look like V-Tech’s Cook Counseling Center is indeed the place he was ordered to go. And if the unversity’s refusal to release his records is any indication, he did go.
Let me take a risk and say I think he was prescribed drugs somewhere along the line, maybe an SSRI – that he began taking regularly (the pills his room-mates saw).
And that’s when the real trouble may have begun.
I don’t know what else might have happened.
Whether he had some sexual experience, like his relatively benign one with the escort he hired…or something that left him more humiliated.
I don’t know who his counselor was. Or whether some therapy session might not have either revealed that he had been abused or had led him, erroneously, to believe he had been abused in the way he suddenly began describing in his plays written in 2006 fall.
Who is the counselor who handled him at Cook? What sorts of pills are prescribed there routinely? Is there a pharmacy which might have records of prescriptions they could hunt up?
Can we have a closer look at the contents of the room that the search warrant disclosed?
Or, more information from his room mates about those pills?
The panel needs to be asking those questions.
And that’ s besides the questions it needs to be asking about that shaky time line.
An online comment on the ABC story follows the same line of thought I had:
“Bullets are the ultimate invasion of privacy. Anyone thinking Virginia Tech is acting out of concern for Cho’s privacy is sadly deluded. The only conclusion to be drawn from this secrecy is that Virginia Tech receives grants, scholarships or other funding from drug companies. Someone “made a phone call” to Virginia Tech administration to hush this up. And the administration withered. — America’s next bloody campus massacre may well trace back to the same psychiatric drugs that deleted Cho’s emotions and left him a robotic killing machine. Withholding facts that might correlate 33 deaths and hundreds of ruined family-members’ lives to prescription medicines cheats the medical community, researchers, patients and parents. — Is Virginia Tech only pretending to be an engineering and scientific institution? Hard science has ethical duties to publish truth, no matter whom it chafes. This institution’s secrecy casts shadows on all its research or academic work. Which studies were influenced by a phone call from a big donor? — Harvard divinity School gained international credibility by returning $2.5 million from the anti-Semitic United Arabs president. Yet Virginia Tech won’t open a file folder to do its scientific and humane duty.”
More news from a reader about V-Tech and some shady dealing there that might..or might not..have anything to do with this story. But, I want to check it out a bit. Stay tuned….and by the way, I do revisit posts to add material and links. I’ll let you know by changing the dates on the post.
I need to organize the V-Tech material so that the major posts show up as widgets – I’m just not that blog-savvy yet. Maybe, some one reading this labor of love can give me a little ‘puter advice as a reward??
T is for Trillion – Mike Chertoff will make a wreck of the border
Among other gag-worthy characteristics, the new immigration bill announced last week is said to cost over 2 trillion (yes, it seems we have a couple of trillion to spare, according to the new, new math).
A country already mired in debt and credit needs to shell out 2 trillion about as much as breaking the law is the prerequisite for citizenship under the rule of law.
The 380-page bill, fruit of three months of high-sounding wrangling, gives the immediate right to work (the Z visa), to some 12-20 million illegal workers who got into the United States before January 1, 2007. Heads of household would have to return to their home countries within eight years, and they would be guaranteed the right to return. Applicants would also have to cough up a $5,000 penalty. That’s thousand. Chump change for migrant workers, of course.
Confirmed. This administration’s math is delusional, its laws are contradictory, and now we also know its alphabet is backward:
“Z visa” is followed by “Y,” a guest worker program which has some merit to it, in so far as it emphasizes good education and skill sets. Brownie points for that. Never mind that guest workers families are broken up and they themselves usually end up held hostage to their employer’s whims and ever-changing paper requirements.
But “Y” follows “Z” in another way too. As in, Y bother. If you’re going to have a law, then apply it fairly to everyone. Or don’t have the law.
Ted Kennedy claims the whole business is about bringing people in from the shadows. If lurking in the shadows is the criterion, why not bring in the Sunni and Shia……that would also put an end to the killing of troops; it would supply cheap labor to businesses. And solve a crisis that, after all, the government did create.
Of course, the government created this one too.
Does anyone think migrant workers paid less than minimum wage are going to be able to cough up $5000? And if they could or couldn’t, would it matter? Because, we already know where this will end – with some border patrolmen hand-in-glove with criminals who will run a racket on it; with a whole industry of racketeers built on that, as there already is on fake documentation; with the innocent in trouble and the guilty off the hook. And then, finally, when the abuse stinks to heaven, there will be even more high-sounding wrangling in government (all at taxpayer expense), and everyone will decide the simplest thing is to cancel the whole thing and go home….until they come back with the next way to drive a nail into the coffin of the US economy.
So, when we are told that this alphabet of errors is not going to be recited until the number of border patrol agents has been doubled (adding 6,000 new agents, bringing the total to 18,000), border fencing strengthened (200 miles of vehicle barriers and new surveillance towers), and a verifiable, high-tech ID-card system for immigrants operational, all in the space of 18 months, let’s figure that the Noah Webster standard American usage definition of this is that it’s a whole new era of bungling bureaucracy about to be inaugurated.
And the only new money forthcoming to finance this fiasco-in-waiting will be collected from employers, who will now be fined for hiring undocumented workers.
Perfect. The federal government shunts the costs of its own inability to man the borders to tax-payers. Then it shoves off the mess of this guacamole onto its citizens.
If Americanness is defined by citizenship and citizenship is defined by law, can the government enforce its own laws while violating the law of the land?
If Americanness is not defined by citizenship, then we need a debate about that.
Nobody wants to demonize immigrants. Least of all an immigrant like me.
If money can go anywhere in the world to make a return on investment (and it should), labor should be free to move where it wants to find work.
But here’s the rub. Not all movement of capital is the genuine productive result of investment activity. A lot of it is driven by interference in the market in the form of state intervention in the money supply. The result of that is speculation – and speculative flows can flood a country, jack up the prices of everything and then in a trice flow out, creating financial disaster. That’s not the free market. That’s state-created financialization.
We know that. And the state affects the labor market like that too.
Letting labor move as it will is one thing. Subsidizing and incentivizing its movement through public services is another.
That imposes unbearable costs on local communities, bankrupts the state, and causes cultural and economic problems. Add to that another thick layer of DC bureaucracy and you have a recipe for disaster. Especially when the registration of these 12-20 million has to be done in 90 days.
In an article in the Washington Times, Emilio Gonzales, the director of the US Citizenship and Immigration Services thinks that time-line should be doubled or tripled if the process is not going to go the way of the fraud-ridden 1986 amnesty of a mere 3 million people:
“We’re litigating cases today from 1986,” he says.
But, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff thinks it’s all fine and dandy.
“Chertoff told CNN that the bill would help him better focus his resources. “Right now, I’ve got my Border Patrol agents and my immigration agents chasing maids and landscapers. I want them to focus on drug dealers and terrorists. It seems to me, if I can get the maids and landscapers into a regulated system and focus my law enforcement on the terrorists and the drug dealers, that’s how I get a safe border.”
(“Immigration Breakthrough Could Pave the Way for Citizenship,” CNN, May 22, 2007)
By the way, Michael Chertoff, chief muck-a-muck of the Department of Homeland Security, knows all about how to handle terrorists.…and immigrants….and safety.
He’s the guy on whose watch New Orleans was hit, first with Katrina… and then with FEMA.
It was he who ran the 9-11 investigation. Chertoff was the senior Justice Department official on duty at the F.B.I. command center just after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
With all but impossible speed, he ID’d the terrorists and made the link to Osama bin Laden. He pushed to merge domestic surveillance and foreign espionage which, until then, had been kept strictly apart under US law. (“The Patriot Act’s Impact,” Duke Law Journal, Nathan C. Henderson, November 15, 2002. Here’s the pdf file: http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?52+Duke+L.+J.+179+pdf. see also, “Crackdown,”Jeffrey Toobin, New Yorker, November 5, 2001).
Chertoff also authorized the unconstitutional detainment of thousands of Middle Eastern immigrants – including Middle Eastern Jews–without charges. As head of the DOJ’s criminal division, he told the CIA how far to go in interrogations. (“Amid Praise, Doubts About Nominee’s Post-9/11 Role,” Michael Powell and Michelle Garcia, Washington Post, January 31, 2005).
With Viet Dinh, he co-authored the unconstitutional USA PATRIOT Act, enacted on October 26, 2001. (“Homeland top job to Patriot Act architect,” AFP, January 13, 2005).
He’s even done a stint as defense in a terrorist trial.
Put in charge of the 9-11 investigation, Chertoff defended Dr. Magdy el-Amir, a leading New Jersey neurologist at the heart of a terrorist web based in Jersey City, alleged to have funneled millions to Osama. Some say Chertoff may have shielded el- Amir from criminal prosecution. (“Trail of Terror,” Chris Hansen and Ann Curry, NBC’s Dateline, August 2002 and The Record, Bergen County, NJ, December 11, 1998).
Nice resume.
According to CNN, Republican Rep. Brian Bilbray of California, chairman of the Immigration Reform Caucus, had this to say about the new immigration bill:
“The ‘compromise’ announced today by Sen. Kennedy will reward 12 million illegal immigrants with a path to citizenship — what part of illegal does the Senate not understand?” he said in a written statement.
At least, we already know what part of the Constitution this government doesn’t.
Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina says the bill “wound up being about what it means to be an American … I think we’ve got a deal that reflects who we are as Americans.”
Maybe, under this administration, we have.
“Being nice to Falwell”- some grammar rules from Michael Oakeshott
“On Human Conduct” was one of the books I found most useful in my thinking in graduate school. And the uncivility of politics (although I doubt if politics has ever been anything but uncivil) brings me back to it today.
Oakeshott wrote of the adverbial rules of conduct, which very briefly, I could translate as the how of things, the way we do them. It’s what I meant when I spoke about style being more important than substance in my Falwell piece, a piece that provoked some criticism from readers who thought I erred in “saying something nice” about Falwell. But the article was neither an exercize in pragmatism nor in dissembling on my part. It was an acknowledgment (I hope) of complexity and the unknowableness of things…a kind of genuflection, not before evangelical Christianity (I am rereading this and immediately see that what I ought to have said here is ‘Christian Zionism’, not ‘evangelical Christianity’, which is unfairly conflated with it. I will leave the original statement here a bit longer, but will eventually delete it – it shows you how we often misspeak in a hurry, using the language “in the air” even when it’s quite inaccurate or downright misleading) . A genuflection not before an influential public figure, but before our own individual limitations as rational beings, before the complexity and ambiguity of moral practice and indeed language itself – not simply our laws about free speech.
“But a moral practice,” he writes, “is not a prudential art concerned with the success of the enterprises of agents; it is not instrumental to the achievement of any substantive purpose nor to the satisfaction of any substantive want. No doubt there may be advantages to be enjoyed in subscribing to its conditions: perhaps, honesty is the best policy; perhaps speaking the truth is a condition for all durable association for the satisfaction of wants. But a moral practice, unlike an instrumental practice, does not stand condemned if no such advantages were to accrue. Indeed, recognizing and subscribing to these conditions may be expected to add to the cost of these transactions. Nor is morality a court of arbitration in which the different and often conflicting purposes of engagement and their chosen action are reconciled to one another and mean satisfactions authorized. It is concerned with the act, not the event; with agents as doers making an impact on one another and not in respect of the particular wants for which they are seeking satisfactions. (my emphasis)
No action whether it be of self-gratification or of care for the satisfaction of others, is exempt from its conditions. And no agent, whatever the circumstances of his conduct, is outside its jurisdiction.”
That’s where the adverbial rules of engagement come in: courteously, civilly, nicely, politely, kindly, generously, compassionately….
Oakeshott differentiated between enterprise associations – which have a specific goal as their end, say, making’ x’ number of cars, and civil associations governed by procedural rules – among which, he placed the state. He would, I think, have been equally opposed to a theocracy and to a state which left no room for the religious – in any real sense.
Oakeshott also saw the the necessity of a minimalist state for the existence of true diversity, not the diversity of enforced outcomes. In that sense, many of the problems we face now become moot once we return the state to its proper limits.
Never Try to Baptize a Cat – Sound Political Advice In Unexpected Places………
A reader sent this in. I added a few pointers (in bold type) and found it could easily be read as useful advice on political engagement:
An Open Letter to Toby & April, Our Dogs
Dear Toby & April:
On Left and Right-Wing Zealotry
When I say to move, it means go someplace else, not switch positions with each other so there are still two dogs in the way.
On Dispossessing People of their Land and their Homes
The dishes with the paw print are yours and contain your food. The other dishes are mine and contain my food. Please note, placing a paw print in the middle of my plate and food does not stake a claim for it becoming your food
and dish, nor do I find that aesthetically pleasing in the slightest.
About the purpose of political debate
The stairway was not designed by Nascar and is not a racetrack. Beating me to the bottom is not the object. Tripping me doesn’t help, because I fall faster than you can run.
On negotiating with those in power
I cannot buy anything bigger than a king size bed. I am very sorry about this. Do not think I will continue to sleep on the couch to ensure your comfort. Look at videos of dogs sleeping; they can actually curl up in a ball. It is not necessary to sleep perpendicular to each other stretched out to the fullest extent possible. I also know that sticking tails straight out and having tongues hanging out the other end to maximize space used is nothing but doggy sarcasm.
On respecting what’s valuable to other people
My compact discs are not miniature Frisbees.
On the right to privacy:
For the last time, there is not a secret exit from the bathroom. If by some miracle I beat you there and manage to get the door shut, it is not necessary to claw, whine, try to turn the knob, or get your paw under the edge and try to pull the door open. I must exit through the same door I
entered. In addition, I have been using bathrooms for years, canine attendance is not mandatory.
On persuading your opponents:
The proper order is kiss me, then go smell the other dog’s butt. I cannot stress this enough. It would be such a simple change for you.
***********
And more, from kids:
On vigilance against the state:
Never trust a dog to watch your food.
Patrick, Age 10
On the dangers of confrontation:
Never talk back to a teacher whose eyes and ears are twitching.
Andrew, Age 9
On the vicissitudes of public service:
Wear a hat when feeding seagulls.
Rocky, Age 9
On readiness to act:
Sleep in your clothes so you’ll be dressed in the morning.
Stephanie, Age 8
On corruption in public life:
Never try to hide a piece of broccoli in a glass of milk.
Rosemary, Age 7
On the limits of resources:
Don’t flush the toilet when you’re dad is in the shower.
Lamar, Age 10
On the timing of negotiations:
Never ask for anything that costs more than five dollars when your parents are doing taxes.
Carrol, Age 9
On the unpredictability of grass roots campaigns:
Never bug a pregnant mom.
Nicholas, Age 11
On the occasional need for political correctness:
When your dad is mad and asks you, “Do I look stupid?” don’t answer him.
Heather, Age 16
On offering unsolicited advice:
Never tell your mom her diet’s not working.
Michael, Age 14
On government disclosure of economic data:
When you get a bad grade in school, show it to your mom when she’s on the phone.
Alyesha, Age 13
On the limits to social reform:
Never try to baptize a cat.
Laura, Age 13
On the proper forum for free expression:
Never do pranks at a police station.
Sam, Age 10
On intellectual discrimination:
Beware of cafeteria food when it looks like it’s moving.
Rob, Age 10
On the wisdom of keeping your own counsel:
Never tell your little brother that you’re not going to do what your mom told you to do.
Hank, Age 12
On the need for rationality:
Listen to your brain. It has lots of information.
Chelsey, Age 7
On associating with relentless negativity:
Stay away from prunes.
Randy, Age 9
On unwise rhetoric:
Never dare your little brother to paint the family car.
Phillip, Age 13
Whacko Indians……….and more..
“Arundhati Roy is a Left wing wacko. Dinesh D’Souza is a Right wing wacko. The only similarity between them, other than both being Indians, is both being pimps for the Allah/Mohammed LLC.”
And more in the same vein at Jihad Watch.
The only thing I can find here that I really agree with is that Marxism does dominate the elite schools in India. Although I’ve used Marxist terminology sometimes, I’m not very convinced by it, so I can’t say much more about the topic.
However, I do remember very warmly many fine Marxist scholars both in India and in the US, who almost made me think again…. As I said in earlier posts, generosity of spirit probably goes a longer way to intellectual agreement than one would think.
You always hope that the blogs, where there’s more space to explain yourself will encourage more cross-fertilization of thought. But when I read some sites, I worry that exactly the opposite might happen and we’ll be walling ourselves up, instead. We won’t need to understand anyone else’s point of view, simply because the net makes linking up exclusively with like-minded souls so easy.
In that vein, I looked for things here I could agree with and found that, well, it’s probably true that some of the crimes committed against other religions under the Muslim emperors in India have been downplayed in the name of secularism. And as always, lack of plainspeaking, even if it’s in a good cause, ends up provoking a backlash….
So, I can agree with that; accuracy in history (so far as it’s possible) is fine. Nothing wrong with that. But, I hope that argument doesn’t end in being a justification for war today…
I have commented on Arundhati, in a piece called “The Gratitude of Turkeys.” I think the venom directed against her is misplaced. She is an architect and writer, not a political philosopher or professional activist. There are things on which she is going to misstate or exaggerate her case, perhaps unknowingly. I have heard her speak a few times on TV and was charmed by her – hard not to be I think. I confess I only skimmed her book but she has a way with words, no doubt of it. Whether she is or isn’t Booker material, as some argue, I have no idea. A new writer is always a pleasure to read on their terms – not ours.
Also, I’d be curious to find out what it is that Dinesh D’Souza has said this time to have so offended so many people all over the place. This isn’t the only place I’m seeing him burned in effigy.
When I’ve heard D’Souza speak on TV, I haven’t usually found him terribly abrasive…a bit too cocky, on occasion. And not always engaged with what others are saying. His tendency to blame everything on the cultural left (and I think on the Carter/Clinton years) is simply wrong-headed.
You would think after having edited/written highly questionable material for the Dartmouth Review, and attacked Affirmative Action in a way that riled black conservatives, there would be nothing more controversial he could say or do. But I guess controversy sells.
In any case, I’m sure being consigned to the intellectual boondocks will do him no harm….
There’s more, though:
“There is a peculiar madness in the worldview of this Dsouza, a madness that seems to afflict certain people from the Indian subcontinent who are wrongly held in esteem as ‘intellectuals’-
Roy, as far as I know, never had anything to offer but slander. She does nothing but mudslinging and her whole scribble is a poisonous cocktail of anarcho-fantasies. I don’t believe anybody should give her a forum.”
Dear me.
Indians are all arrogant, too, it seems…….
Though, I wonder, arrogant about what? The last I heard, it’s been proved that we’re lagging a bit in the IQ department.
81, I believe is the average Indian IQ, according to an often cited study. But, since I didn’t read the original paper, I’m not sure about the methodology. Oh, the angst this must be provoking in some places.
Gene Expression, the site on which this tidbit is posted, is one I’ve come across before. The discussion is interesing here, although in some places on the net, the discussions about race and IQ are pretty startling …and raw..
I even thought I saw one thread like that on Gene Expression, but am not very sure — an elaborate riff about caucasoid Indians versus non-caucasoid Indians, upper and lower castes, dark and light skinned, which ethnic type dominates Silicon Valley..darker skinned Dravidians, apparently..
81….Hmmmmm, I guess that accounts for all those whacko Indians….
(Strictly humor…no offense intended).
Readers write in about that shaky V Tech timeline…
I received a lot of support on the V Tech article, for eg. :
Lila,
RE: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/rajiva3.html
Thank you for a thoroughly informative article about the government's many
failures in the VT shootings.
I thought you might want to know that there are some published timelines that
indicate that the police dallied for over twenty minutes (maybe even close to
30), rather than 5, 9, or 11.
Here's one link I found, with others in the discussion below, that suggest
different timelines than what the major media have been reporting:
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn04212007.html
-- NAME DELETED
>Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 09:38:34 -0400
>To: NAME DELETED
>Subject: Fwd: Re: Crazed Maniacal Asian Killer
>
>
>By the way, the Times Dispatch said in a timeline they published on Sunday that
the first call actually came in at 9:21 or something. The cops were on the
scene in two minutes (it was a brief run across the field where a hundred or so
already were at the double murder).
>
>The VT site still clouds the time they got the first call from the 2nd
building; it still says 9:45, as have several other news outlets. I think they
know they screwed up, and they are trying to fudge the numbers in the hopes no
one notices.
>
>-- NAME DELETED
> >>Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 10:17:48 -0400 >>To: NAME DELETED
From: NAME DELETED
>>Subject: Re: Crazed Maniacal Asian Killer >> >> >>>>>I should have saved the links, but I didn't. There were several articles that said there was a 21 minute or 27 minute delay before they entered. I do remember one of the columnists on LewRockwell.com mentioned it. It's eventually going to appear -- buried -- in police reports, but by then the debate will have shifted to gun control, and the entry delay will be off the radar like it was in Columbine. >> >>I've seen it in several of the news reports. One person can be heard saying "why aren't they going in?" while he's capturing the video, and gunshots can be clearly heard. It was pretty obvious the cops were clueless, several can be clearly seen walking around in the video, looking like they don't know where to go or what to do. >> >>It may also be a lot worse than a twenty-minute delay before they went in. Something is really fishy. >> >> From what NBC reports: >> >>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18138327/ >> >>... the second assault actually started at 9:15 am. I presume that's when he put the chains on the doors, and then worked his way upstairs. According to witnesses, the shootings began at 9:20 am. >> >>Yet the police say they didn't get the first call until 9:45 am. I consider that really friggin unlikely, given that everyone and his brother now has a cellphone, and since there are hardwired phones in every classroom. >> >>http://www.vt.edu/tragedy/timeline.php >> >>I'm tempted to do a FOIA request for the 911 logs. >> >>There's probably a bunch of people who still have their cellphone logs of their 911 calls; but I bet the cops don't release the records they get from the cellphone companies. >> >>The killer apparently shot himself at about 9:50. Something's really wrong when a shooter can do his work for 30 minutes without a response. >> >>Here's a couple more timelines: >> >>http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/17/timeline.text/index.html >> >>http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_9889.aspx >> >>The VT timeline says the cops took less than a minute to go in once they got the calls at 9:45. That may or may not be true (notice at the bottom of their page says "Editor's Note: All times are approximate."); and that by the time they got upstairs at 9:50, it was already over. >> >>The government had so many opportunities to prevent this guy from doing what he did, and they missed every time. Just like 9/11. >> >>You know, I wondered at first that this guy was railing against class and so would have shot what looked to him like the white middle class wealthy people, but he didn't. It was entirely indiscriminate: >> >>http://www.nytimes.com/ref/us/20070418_VICTIMS_GRAPHIC.html >> >>Lost in the gun controllers hot air is the fact that politicians railing against gun control are all surrounded by teams of well-armed footsoldiers. See the article I added on, below. >> >>NAME DELETED
>> >> >> >>At 11:20 PM 4/21/2007 -0500, you wrote: >>>>>> >>>I have been ignoring all the crap from the media looking to find >>>negligence on the part of the University or the police. >>> >>>I was very alarmed today when you said that the police waited outside of Norris Hall for 20 minutes AFTER shots had been fired. >>> >>>What is the source of this information? >>> >>>Thank you, >>> >>>>> >> >> >> >> >>Tuesday, April 17th 2007 6:22PM >>Campus security stirs feelings of safety >>Michelle Rivera, CT News Reporter >> >>Today, whether for the security for the presence of high officials or to add a reassuring presence to a community left in a state of shock, there is an increase in security around campus. With President Bush and other high officials present for the convocation at 2p.m. , there was a swarm of state troopers and other security officers around Cassell Coliseum and Lane Stadium. >> >>"I actually just came to campus for the convocation," said Paige Barlow, graduate student for the Department of Fisheries. "I saw tons of officers all over Cassell and Lane." As she walked near the Squires Student Center to get a late lunch, she felt safe. "We're all still a little shook up, but it's nice to know that the issue is being dealt with," she said. >> >>Others agreed that the presence of high officials was at least one reason for the heightened security. >> >>"I think there are so many officers on campus today one, because the president is here and two, because of the scare of yesterday's events happening again," said De Monh, sophomore business major. "I don't think there are too many officers here today." >> >>Virginia State Troopers are present on campus streets, outside of various buildings, and near walkways across campus. >> >>"I believe it was partly for the (security of) high officials, but also for a sense of security for the students," said Debbie Wilkins, Hokie parent of two. >> >>Though many felt that the purpose of security was for the protection of high officials, others felt it was for a sense of safety for all those on campus. >> >>Sarah Sparks, senior theater major, was walking along Kent Street beside the drillfield and passed a congregation of state troopers. "I think it's a great idea that there are so many policemen on campus," Sparks said. "It makes us all feel a lot safer, and having the visual of so much security adds to our feelings of safety." >> >>Though the heightened security had the positive effect of helping students feel secure, it also made it difficult to travel around campus. "Security made it hard to get onto the grounds to get our child," said Wilkins. She however stuck to her opinion that security was a positive measure. "A lot of the kids still feel scared and insecure, and with security here, at least they know that today nothing will happen," she said. >> >>-- end --
My Comment
I agree that the shooting probably took half an hour.
I was just being ultra cautious in my article.
Meanwhile, I'd like to enlist support for a FOIA request.
Any takers?
How do I colonize thee? Let me count the ways…
Just to underscore my earlier posts on Ali Eteraz’s criticism of Islamic fundamentalism and on “liberventionism” (human rights or other universal, liberal values used as cover for colonial policies), I am posting this, courtesy of William Bowles.
It was written by a senior diplomat, Robert Cooper, in his personal capacity, while working in Blair’s administration in the UK in 2002.
“What form should intervention take? The most logical way to deal with chaos, and the one most employed in the past is colonisation. But colonisation is unacceptable to postmodern states (and, as it happens, to some modern states too). It is precisely because of the death of imperialism that we are seeing the emergence of the pre-modern world. Empire and imperialism are words that have become a form of abuse in the postmodern world. Today, there are no colonial powers willing to take on the job, though the opportunities, perhaps even the need for colonisation is as great as it ever was in the nineteenth century. Those left out of the global economy risk falling into a vicious circle. Weak government means disorder and that means falling investment. In the 1950s, South Korea had a lower GNP per head than Zambia: the one has achieved membership of the global economy, the other has not.
All the conditions for imperialism are there, but both the supply and demand for imperialism have dried up. And yet the weak still need the strong and the strong still need an orderly world. A world in which the efficient and well governed export stability and liberty, and which is open for investment and growth – all of this seems eminently desirable.
What is needed then is a new kind of imperialism, one acceptable to a world of human rights and cosmopolitan values. We can already discern its outline: an imperialism which, like all imperialism, aims to bring order and organisation but which rests today on the voluntary principle.
Postmodern imperialism takes two forms. First there is the voluntary imperialism of the global economy. This is usually operated by an international consortium through International Financial Institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank – it is characteristic of the new imperialism that it is multilateral. These institutions provide help to states wishing to find their way back into the global economy and into the virtuous circle of investment and prosperity. In return they make demands which, they hope, address the political and economic failures that have contributed to the original need for assistance. Aid theology today increasingly emphasises governance. If states wish to benefit, they must open themselves up to the interference of international organisations and foreign states (just as, for different reasons, the postmodern world has also opened itself up.)
The second form of postmodern imperialism might be called the imperialism of neighbours. Instability in your neighbourhood poses threats which no state can ignore. Misgovernment, ethnic violence and crime in the Balkans poses a threat to Europe. The response has been to create something like a voluntary UN protectorate in Bosnia and Kosovo. It is no surprise that in both cases the High Representative is European. Europe provides most of the aid that keeps Bosnia and Kosovo running and most of the soldiers (though the US presence is an indispensable stabilising factor). In a further unprecedented move, the EU has offered unilateral free-market access to all the countries of the former Yugoslavia for all products including most agricultural produce. It is not just soldiers that come from the international community; it is police, judges, prison officers, central bankers and others. Elections are organised and monitored by the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Local police are financed and trained by the UN. As auxiliaries to this effort – in many areas indispensable to it – are over a hundred NGOs.”
My Comment:
Where to begin dissecting this thing? Oh, the embarrassment of riches…