“Yes, diversity in all things. Except, of course, in thought. Presumably, Professor Stanton is also “stunned”, “appalled” and “deeply offended” by the over-representation of, say, gay people in the spheres of arts and drama, or of women in the caring professions, or of Indian employees in Indian restaurants. Perhaps some recalibration of those industries is also in order, to ensure suitable diversity.
Many Democrats have anticipated that, at best, Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker would present a mixed analysis of the success of the current troop surge strategy, given continued violence in Baghdad. But of late there have been signs that the commander of U.S. forces might be preparing something more generally positive. [House Majority Whip James] Clyburn said that would be “a real big problem for us.”
The New York Times ran a piece Monday by two non-“neoconservatives” Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack arguing that the war in Iraq can be won. Is this indicative of some kind of mood change afoot? Could we really win this war? Could the rhetoric in Washington really change? National Review Online asked a group of experts.
Please do not adjust your sets. The source of the high-pitched whining you may hear in the blog background this morning appears to be coming from a leak in this link.
Our engineers are working to rectify the problem. We thank you for your patience.
Lawyer Daniel Brodsky confuses the Canadian public with someone who gives a rat’s ass about Peter Whitmore;
Daniel Brodsky told the Winnipeg Free Press that Canada would be a much safer country if dangerous predators such as Mr. Whitmore could get proper medical treatment instead of being warehoused behind bars before returning to society.
He said it’s clear Mr. Whitmore is suffering from mental illness based on the depravity of his crimes, his disturbing fantasies and a persistent obsession with young boys.
Mr. Brodsky also dismissed suggestions that, because pedophilia is deemed an “incurable mental disorder” by many professionals, there is no hope for someone like Mr. Whitmore.
“We don’t refuse to treat cancer patients because there is no cure,” Mr. Brodsky said yesterday, one day after his former client was given a life sentence under a plea bargain with Saskatchewan justice officials.
I believe we need a new criminal designation for offenders like Whitmore – to fill the gap that “dangerous offender” status has left open – a “no hope” provision.
I kind of like “Dead-Ender”.
Dead-enders would not receive treatment for psychological disorders, therapy or programs of any kind. No state funded efforts at rehabilitation, no visitors, no progress reports, no appearances before the parole board. No life extending medical care.
The primary obligation of the justice system to “dead enders” would be to cease wasting our money on them.
Then, dead-enders like Peter Whitmore might finally receive the prison sentence they deserve – three meals a day, rabbit-ear TV, and the promise of a dignified burial upon release.
Maybe throw in a rope.
July 16, 2007
Ms. Connie Wilkins
c/o Free Dominion
2033 Unity Rd.
Dear Ms. Wilkins:
I am the investigator designated under Part III of the Canadian Human Rights Act to investigate the complaint of Ms. [name omitted at this time] against Free Dominion. As the investigator, it is my responsibility to gather the evidence in relation to the complainant’s allegations and, once the investigation is complete, to report on my findings to the Members of the Commission.
The report will include a recommendation for the disposition of the complaint. I can recommend that a conciliator be appointed, if the evidence supports the allegations in the complaint, or that the complaint be dismissed, if the allegations are not supported by the evidence. I can also recommend to the Commission that a settlement be approved if the parties reach an agreement during the course of the investigation.
I am currently awaiting your full response to the allegations which is due on 18 July 2007.
I would like to draw your attention to section 48 of the Canadian Human Rights Act which allows the parties to settle a complaint in the course of investigation. I would be pleased to discuss the possibility of a settlement with you or your representative at any time.
You can reach me at the address and telephone number indicated at the bottom of the first page of this letter. My direct line is 999-999-9999 and my email address is OfficersName@chrc-ccdp.ca. Please note that there are security and confidentiality risks in sending information by email.
This was left in their mailbox. The “allegations” are not provided.
Keep an eye on this one.
Democrats and the media have set new guidelines for America.
The national sacrifice limit will now be set at 4000, max.
Anytime the US records 4000 military losses in 5 1/2 years it will be recognized under the new rules as a horrible defeat.
The US will then promptly surrender to the nearest enemy.
I recommend you read Richard’s discussion here before commenting. Update – A critique – “this anecdote illustrates the problem with Libertarianism/Objectivism: the majority of people aren’t as intelligent as your average Libertarian/Objectivist thinks they (themselves) are. […] Many, many people are just stupid. By definition, 49% of the population is below average.”
And my response – Find the average of these three numbers; 100, 130, 150.
(See? Objectivists are smarter. ) Further comments – I’ve heard variations of this statement often (so won’t make a point of pinning it on Kathy Shaidle) that “49% of the population is below average”.
Setting aside for a moment the fun with the math earlier, statements like this suggest that IQ scores (for want of a better measure) are evenly distributed across the cognitive range. That is – that the number of people who score 100 would be roughly the same as those who score 60, 80, 120, 140. That’s quite obviously inaccurate – the vast majority of test scores are clustered in the middle range, at what is considered “average”. If they weren’t, we’d truly be in big trouble as a species.
I agree that many, many people are “just stupid”. But they aren’t the majority, and I don’t know that it does our societal systems much good to design public policy around what best serves the lowest common denominator.
So, get them a plane ticket already! Stanley Kurtz on immigration and Fort Dix;
Chain migration through extended family unification is a potentially huge barrier to assimilation. My recent two-part study of cousin marriage and failed Muslim assimilation in Britain is essentially the story of how the loophole of family reunification was turned by in-marrying extended Muslim clans into an immigration disaster. (See “Assimilation Studies,” and “Assimilation Studies, Part II.”
Today’s NYT story seems to tell an at least somewhat similar story. The same pattern of immigration based on extended clan ties, and the maintenance of links with clan-dominated villages in the originating country, seems to apply. This pattern is a recipe for failed assimilation.
I am not saying that anyone in the Duka family, outside the plotters themselves, was involved here. The point is, when you bring over a vast extended clan through chain migration, and when that extended family group maintains constant ties with an originating village, it becomes vastly more difficult to assimilate. For one thing, chain migration means a constant supply of new family members who don’t know English and are unfamiliar with Western ways. For another thing, you are least likely to give up traditional practices, notions of honor, etc., when you are surrounded by people who know you from your home village. In England, it’s gotten to the point where marriage-based chain migration has resulted in entire Pakistani villages almost literally being picked up and transferred whole to Britain.
George Bush was vilified for appearing at Bob Jones University—the idea being that his appearing at a private conservative Christian university meant he necessarily supported (even if it was only with a wink and a nod) all of their social policies, and so could be painted with a racist, “Christianist” brush. Which is why we heard so much about what “lessons” we were to draw from Bush’s stumping at a school that had a ban on interracial dating (a ban it lifted in the wake of Bush’s visit).
Yet we seldom hear the same kind of criticism from “progressives” when Democratic politicians visit black Baptist churches. Are Bill and Hillary anti-gay? Is Edwards?
I rather doubt it, but that’s beside the point, really. Because the trick of identity politics is to gather up grievance groups as voting blocs, and to do that, one has to embrace their grievance narratives and sympathize—usually with government largesse or group-specific legislation. When the grievance narratives of two identity blocs sharing the same political affiliation conflict, the “pragmatic” thing to do, progressives have found, is to pretend they hadn’t noticed.