In the Washington Post of January 25, Blaine Harden reported:
Hardiman, a parent of seven here in the southern suburbs of Seattle, has himself roiled the global-warming waters. It happened early this month when he learned that one of his daughters would be watching "An Inconvenient Truth" in her seventh-grade science class.
"No you will not teach or show that propagandist Al Gore video to my child, blaming our nation -- the greatest nation ever to exist on this planet -- for global warming," Hardiman wrote in an e-mail to the Federal Way School Board. The 43-year-old computer consultant is an evangelical Christian who says he believes that a warming planet is "one of the signs" of Jesus Christ's imminent return for Judgment Day.
His angry e-mail (along with complaints from a few other parents) stopped the film from being shown to Hardiman's daughter.
The question now is: What about the rights of the parents who would like their kids to see the documentary? Are they going to launch their campaign or just take it?
But who is this guy anyway? Listen to him.
No you will not teach or show that propagandist Al Gore video to my child, blaming our nation -- the greatest nation ever to exist on this planet -- for global warming," Hardiman wrote in an e-mail to the Federal Way School Board.
So who exactly is this guy?
The 43-year-old computer consultant is an evangelical Christian who says he believes that a warming planet is "one of the signs" of Jesus Christ's imminent return for Judgment Day.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Good analysis by a columnist
Richard Cohen, a columnist for The Washington Post, makes a very pertinent observation about the American involvement in Iraq. He goes to the bottom line, the fundamental reason for failure of Americans in Iraq. Exerpts:
Those tunnels explained to me why the United States lost the Vietnam War. We were fighting people who cared deeply enough about their cause to live underground, to live in ways that no American could even imagine. The Vietnamese communists would do for their cause what no American would do for ours. They won because they believed. We lost because we didn't. We didn't have to.
Similarly, we did not notice that in all the hoopla just before Hussein's statue in Baghdad's Firdaus Square came down in 2003, the crowd went silent after an American flag was draped over it. The crowd came to life only when the Iraqi flag replaced it. Had we noticed that, we might have learned something about Iraqi nationalism and the fleeting gratitude awarded to liberators. One minute you're a liberator, the next an occupier.
Now, of course, everyone looks like an idiot. Bremer was an idiot and Garner was an idiot and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and Cheney and all the generals, with the exception of Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, who called for lots and lots of troops and was sidelined. But these men are not really idiots. They were merely wrong, sometimes on account of arrogance, but they were doing what they thought was the right thing. They simply didn't know what they didn't know. They didn't know a damned thing about Iraq.
Those tunnels explained to me why the United States lost the Vietnam War. We were fighting people who cared deeply enough about their cause to live underground, to live in ways that no American could even imagine. The Vietnamese communists would do for their cause what no American would do for ours. They won because they believed. We lost because we didn't. We didn't have to.
Similarly, we did not notice that in all the hoopla just before Hussein's statue in Baghdad's Firdaus Square came down in 2003, the crowd went silent after an American flag was draped over it. The crowd came to life only when the Iraqi flag replaced it. Had we noticed that, we might have learned something about Iraqi nationalism and the fleeting gratitude awarded to liberators. One minute you're a liberator, the next an occupier.
Now, of course, everyone looks like an idiot. Bremer was an idiot and Garner was an idiot and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and Cheney and all the generals, with the exception of Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, who called for lots and lots of troops and was sidelined. But these men are not really idiots. They were merely wrong, sometimes on account of arrogance, but they were doing what they thought was the right thing. They simply didn't know what they didn't know. They didn't know a damned thing about Iraq.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Of bigotry, racism and ethnocentrism
We are aware of the root cause behind colonial history: to "civilize" the inferior races. The feelings of ethnocentric attitudes persist deeply in human psyche. It is evident in most of the world leaders, particularly in the Western world in their attitude towards the developing countries. It is not a surprise that the people of the West also suffer from the same syndrome. This is not to exculpate people from any part of the world in any society. Those who have a little higher station in life in the developing countries manifest similar behavior toward the less fortunate. How unfortunate!
In the Western leaders, John McCain is probably one of the biggest hype. The truth is that he has turned from a maverick to a hypocrit. He is a racist otherwise he would not use word such as "gook" to refer to Vietnamese people.
And just today Bush chided the Iraqi leaders for the way they executed two of Saddam's allies. He thought it smacked of revenge. What a remark! It is hard to figure out what planet these people livein; it is apparently not Earth. However, as they say, the bigger they are, the harder they fall.
Anyway, the point I wanted to note was the racism and bigotry present in the world. The news in Hindustan Times caught my attention. Here are some exerpts:
Shilpa faces racist abuse on UK show
Vijay Dutt
London, January 16, 2007
TV viewers in the UK are outraged at the racist treatment meted out to actress Shilpa Shetty on the reality show Celebrity Big Brother. Over the past few days, fellow participants have called Shilpa “dog”, “Paki”, and other offensive names.
“Goody’s mother Jackiey (who has now been evicted) started calling Shilpa ‘Sipla’, then, sarcastically, ‘princess’ and finally, ‘the Indian’,” hotelier Girish Sanger told HT. “When Shilpa cooked chicken, Lloyd refused it, saying it was overcooked and that was why Indians were thin and sickly. She said, ‘How do Indians eat with their fingers? One doesn’t know where their fingers have been’,” Sanger said.
The Guardian quoted Lloyd as having said of Shilpa, “She is a dog,” and Goody as, “She makes me feel sick. She makes my skin crawl.” The daily said that on Monday’s show, “Shetty (had) ended up in tears”.
In the Western leaders, John McCain is probably one of the biggest hype. The truth is that he has turned from a maverick to a hypocrit. He is a racist otherwise he would not use word such as "gook" to refer to Vietnamese people.
And just today Bush chided the Iraqi leaders for the way they executed two of Saddam's allies. He thought it smacked of revenge. What a remark! It is hard to figure out what planet these people livein; it is apparently not Earth. However, as they say, the bigger they are, the harder they fall.
Anyway, the point I wanted to note was the racism and bigotry present in the world. The news in Hindustan Times caught my attention. Here are some exerpts:
Shilpa faces racist abuse on UK show
Vijay Dutt
London, January 16, 2007
TV viewers in the UK are outraged at the racist treatment meted out to actress Shilpa Shetty on the reality show Celebrity Big Brother. Over the past few days, fellow participants have called Shilpa “dog”, “Paki”, and other offensive names.
“Goody’s mother Jackiey (who has now been evicted) started calling Shilpa ‘Sipla’, then, sarcastically, ‘princess’ and finally, ‘the Indian’,” hotelier Girish Sanger told HT. “When Shilpa cooked chicken, Lloyd refused it, saying it was overcooked and that was why Indians were thin and sickly. She said, ‘How do Indians eat with their fingers? One doesn’t know where their fingers have been’,” Sanger said.
The Guardian quoted Lloyd as having said of Shilpa, “She is a dog,” and Goody as, “She makes me feel sick. She makes my skin crawl.” The daily said that on Monday’s show, “Shetty (had) ended up in tears”.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
"Stay the course" by any other name
So Bush made his "informed" decision last night after "listening" to wide range of experts on the course of action for Iraq, which turned out to be his favorite phrase "stay the course," but not put in those terms. Things to note:
He seems to hinge on a belief that he can trust Maliki. Only one liar can be duped by another liar. In this case it is because of his wishful thinking. He seems not to have paid attention to the way Saddam was hung--pure vendetta that was a result of deeply ingrained sectorian strife, which is not going to be turned overnight by merely wishing. But cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing. It is hard to open your mind to reality when your fuzzy brain has been eaten away by "faith."
Easy to say one is a decider! A decision is only as good as one's ability to absorb and analyse the real situation. A person who has never had any exposure to the history of the world or the nature of international relations will never be able to analyze this kind of situation since he is already limited in his ability to comprehed, especially for someone who find it hard to admit that he has made any mistakes.
Bush proudly professed that he showed a "C" student can also be a president. That is true. But what is more true is that he will also make decision that are "C" or less. The policy after 9/11 clearly proves this point. In Yale he may have received a "mercy C" but in his Iraq policy, it would be hard to consider even a "F. "
Lastly, this kind of stubborness and "self righteousness" can only come from someone as self proclaimed to be "born again." Faith trumps everything else if one believes that one is ordained by God for a purpose.
He seems to hinge on a belief that he can trust Maliki. Only one liar can be duped by another liar. In this case it is because of his wishful thinking. He seems not to have paid attention to the way Saddam was hung--pure vendetta that was a result of deeply ingrained sectorian strife, which is not going to be turned overnight by merely wishing. But cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing. It is hard to open your mind to reality when your fuzzy brain has been eaten away by "faith."
Easy to say one is a decider! A decision is only as good as one's ability to absorb and analyse the real situation. A person who has never had any exposure to the history of the world or the nature of international relations will never be able to analyze this kind of situation since he is already limited in his ability to comprehed, especially for someone who find it hard to admit that he has made any mistakes.
Bush proudly professed that he showed a "C" student can also be a president. That is true. But what is more true is that he will also make decision that are "C" or less. The policy after 9/11 clearly proves this point. In Yale he may have received a "mercy C" but in his Iraq policy, it would be hard to consider even a "F. "
Lastly, this kind of stubborness and "self righteousness" can only come from someone as self proclaimed to be "born again." Faith trumps everything else if one believes that one is ordained by God for a purpose.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Kidd's bout with marital problem is a case of mental illness
The news about former Phoenix Sun's center NBA star Jason Kidd filing for divorce from his wife was interesting in a strange way to me. When I read the section, I found something very familiar to me. Exerpt:
His complaint, however, paints a detailed portrait of Joumana Kidd as a vitriolic, jealous and paranoid wife prone to public outbursts and threats, including during a recent Nets game.
According to the complaint, Joumana Kidd used the couple's 8-year-old son on Dec. 27 to sneak into the Nets locker room and rummage through Jason Kidd's locker to find his cell phone. After looking up the names and numbers on it, the complaint said she left her son behind as she went upstairs to take a front row seat, where she shouted insults at Kidd throughout the game.
The papers accuse Joumana Kidd of kicking, hitting, punching and throwing household objects at her husband as she became "increasingly controlling and manipulative" in the last few years of their union.
According to Kidd, his wife had tracking devices installed on his cars and computers and has harassed his trainer, friends and family.
I think his wife seriously needs to consult a psychiatrist. It shows an evidence of mental problems. If these were the worst he experienced, he had really too much for an NBA star to have to deal with. People experience far worse than thse. I speak from personal experience. However, what can one do when someone has mental illness, and it is impossible to interact rationally?
His complaint, however, paints a detailed portrait of Joumana Kidd as a vitriolic, jealous and paranoid wife prone to public outbursts and threats, including during a recent Nets game.
According to the complaint, Joumana Kidd used the couple's 8-year-old son on Dec. 27 to sneak into the Nets locker room and rummage through Jason Kidd's locker to find his cell phone. After looking up the names and numbers on it, the complaint said she left her son behind as she went upstairs to take a front row seat, where she shouted insults at Kidd throughout the game.
The papers accuse Joumana Kidd of kicking, hitting, punching and throwing household objects at her husband as she became "increasingly controlling and manipulative" in the last few years of their union.
According to Kidd, his wife had tracking devices installed on his cars and computers and has harassed his trainer, friends and family.
I think his wife seriously needs to consult a psychiatrist. It shows an evidence of mental problems. If these were the worst he experienced, he had really too much for an NBA star to have to deal with. People experience far worse than thse. I speak from personal experience. However, what can one do when someone has mental illness, and it is impossible to interact rationally?
UN: A Symbol of a Disfunctional World
The South Korean Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has startd his tenure at the head of the disfunctional world body. The reason for the ineptness of this instituion is, of course, its anachronistic nature. An exerpt below from UK weekly Economist makes it clear:
When the UN was created in 1945, its founder-nations—the four main victors of the second world war, America, Britain, China and Russia, plus France—allocated to themselves the only five permanent seats, with veto powers, on what was then an 11-seat Security Council. The other members, all elected by the General Assembly, held two-year non-renewable seats without a veto. Since then, the number of the UN's member states has almost quadrupled from 51 to 192, two-thirds of them in the developing world.
Yet apart from the addition of four more non-permanent seats in 1965, membership of the Security Council, the only UN body whose decisions are binding, has remained unchanged. The system is not only undemocratic, anachronistic and unfair, but also—as Paul Kennedy, professor of history at Yale, suggests in his new book, “The Parliament of Man”—outrageous. Yet it cannot be changed without inviting a veto from one of the very nations whose powers might be diminished.
The UN security counsil seats should be expanded to reflect the present world and give representation to all continents and people. There should be no provision for veto power to anyone.
Link to the article: http://www.economist.com/world/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8490176
When the UN was created in 1945, its founder-nations—the four main victors of the second world war, America, Britain, China and Russia, plus France—allocated to themselves the only five permanent seats, with veto powers, on what was then an 11-seat Security Council. The other members, all elected by the General Assembly, held two-year non-renewable seats without a veto. Since then, the number of the UN's member states has almost quadrupled from 51 to 192, two-thirds of them in the developing world.
Yet apart from the addition of four more non-permanent seats in 1965, membership of the Security Council, the only UN body whose decisions are binding, has remained unchanged. The system is not only undemocratic, anachronistic and unfair, but also—as Paul Kennedy, professor of history at Yale, suggests in his new book, “The Parliament of Man”—outrageous. Yet it cannot be changed without inviting a veto from one of the very nations whose powers might be diminished.
The UN security counsil seats should be expanded to reflect the present world and give representation to all continents and people. There should be no provision for veto power to anyone.
Link to the article: http://www.economist.com/world/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8490176
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
