Fri 6 Nov 2009
Siberian Mountain Day
Posted by David under Purple Noise at 12:42 pm
Open thread for discussion of any topics. Archived comments from Speak Up this week below.
Print • Email| « EphBlog: temporarily outages STILL occurring | Yankees Win » |
61 Responses to “Siberian Mountain Day”
Leave a Reply
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post
If a comment you submitted does not show up, please email us at eph at ephblog dot com. Please note that commenters are required to use a valid email address when submitting comments.
David says:
Interesting article on the Kindle and academia. How many years before fewer than 1/2 of Williams first years purchase a textbook? I put the over/under at 10.
JG says:
With the threat that Amazon could just randomly decide to revoke a student’s right to use the textbook, I’d hope students don’t rely on it too much.
frank uible says:
Tonight Dave Clawson’s Bowling Green State University football team (4-5,3-2) defeated Turner Gill’s University of Buffalo team (3-6,1-4) at Buffalo, coming from behind during the last 2 minutes of play with a final score of 30-29 in a Mid-America Conference, nationally televised (ESPN2) game.
JeffZ says:
Speaking of Eph coaches, Mike Bajakian is one of only three offensive coordinators from a non-power conference ranked (albeit barely) in Rivals’ offensive coach rankings (go to the pull down and put in offensive coach):
http://collegefootball.rivals.com/viewCFSE.asp
Yet another P'12 says:
Amherst announces pledges of $125 million:
https://www.amherst.edu/aboutamherst/news/news_releases/2009/11/node/142095
Parent '12 says:
https://www.amherst.edu/aboutamherst/news/news_releases/2009/11/node/142095
JeffZ says:
Wow, pretty huge for Amherst … and from anonymous alums to boot.
frank uible says:
hwc: Do these two gifts save Amherst’s financial bacon?
wslack says:
http://www.kiplinger.com/tools/privatecolleges/privatecollege.php?schoollist=lib_arts&sortby=RANK&orderby=flip&states=ALL&myschool=none&outputby=table
Rankings!
David says:
An impressive amount of PC silliness is this WSO thread about the Fort Hood shootings.
JeffZ says:
Nothing in that thread looks remotely “PC” or “silly” to me.
kthomas says:
^^ It’s six bloody comments at this point, David. Were you just presuming that by the time eB readers get to it, someone will have said something identifiably PC?
Ronit says:
@David: I don’t see what you’re talking about, at all. It seems like a real time reflection of the news as it broke.
JeffZ says:
Ken at 12 — well said. I think I am just going to start posting a random comment to appear at 7:30 A.M. each day Kane is not on a positing holiday, to the effect of “Sweet Jesus, DK, are you out of your skull?” In at least five days out of ten, it will make total sense.
David says:
From the thread:
Read this. Back to WSO:
Can’t wait! As soon as I heard the shooter’s name, I came to a different conclusion.
And that was just three hours ago! (Although, admittedly, the “this” in that sentence is open to interpretation.)
Proposition: Islamic belief played an important role in this shooting.
In this imperfect world, as information comes in, a smart Eph’s beliefs in this proposition will change. At this point, I am at 99%. As soon as I heard the shooter’s name, I was at 90%. The “PC silliness” is giving the proposition a much lower probability (20%?) than an objective consideration of the facts warrant.
But, obviously, that claim rests on your belief about the proposition. Who thinks that the primary issues were these?
JeffZ says:
David’s selective editing of that thread is criminally dishonest, especially the last quote. For anyone who, for some reason, hasn’t learned this lesson by now, never trust DK’s loaded characterization of ANYTHING, go instead to the original source. Have a great weekend everyone.
Ronit says:
http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/11/the_meaninglessness_of_shootin.php
Ronit says:
http://www.newshoggers.com/blog/2009/11/the-aardvarks-ten-questions-about-combating-violent-extremism.html (featuring some great questions from Marc Lynch)
Ronit says:
From http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2009-11-06-shooter_N.htm?csp=34 (article by Ken Dilanian ‘91):
Dick Swart says:
I believe quite a bit of public opinion seems to be formed by the ever-present stories that, if one had to say were “on message”, seem to be similar to this one.
Not a suicide bombing in the Green Zone, or another outrage in Palestine, or a betrayal by alleged ‘friendlies’ in Afghanistan, but the kind of folksy little story that in it’s own way reinforces image through the sharing of the human experience.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8347216.stm
Ronit says:
http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/11/06/the_globalization_of_the_macabre
Ronit says:
A letter from Ft. Hood, via occasional EphBlogger Vermando,
Ronit says:
So far, we have determined that, in addition to the students on WSO quoted above and people like JeffZ, Kthomas, and Vermando, the following people are also guilty of PC silliness:
James Fallows
Marc Lynch
Ken Dilanian
former Assistant Secretary of Defense S. Ward Casscells (Health Affairs)
Charles Rice, President of the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences
Dan Drezner
Kevin Drum and Kevin Drum’s correspondent at Ft. Hood
But, hey, David may have no knowledge of the situation or expertise on the topic but at least he heard the shooter’s name and is therefore 90% sure that this was motivated primarily by Islam.
David says:
Ronit: Without reading all these links, I don’t see any of these people disagreeing with what I said. I agree that there is no reason to draw major conclusions about anything from a single act of violence. The PC silliness was the initial denial that this one specific individual was, in part, motivated by his belief in Islam.
Do you disagree that he was partly motivated by religion?
Ronit says:
@David: I don’t have the slightest clue what he was motivated by, and neither do you.
David says:
Oh my Lord! This is too wonderful. In #19, Ronit quotes the USA Today:
In other words, nothing to see here. Not a jihadi of any kind. Move along folks.
But, the exact same article has since been updated. Here is what is says now:
I have bolded the changed portion of the quote. Needless to say, this is not Ronit’s fault. I am sure that he quoted the version of the story that he saw accurately.
But this perfectly illustrates the PC-silliness of the WSO thread. The PC belief is that belief in Islam does not cause people to do bad things. Therefore, whatever reasons the shooter might have had can’t have anything to do with his religious beliefs, except to the extent that nasty Americans were mocking his religion.
USA Today (like the LA Times) is doing its best to pretend that the shooter’s religion is irrelevant in explaining his actions, going so far as to, at least initially, misquote (?) Casscells.
In truth, Hasan’s actions were X percent motivated by his religion. (I am flexible about the precise value of X.) The PC-silliness is to think/pretend that his action were 0 (or X/100) motivated by religion.
Ronit says:
@David: So did you know Hasan well? He sounds like he must have been a friend of yours if you have so much information about his motivations.
Ronit says:
Maybe you should contact the investigators and offer to testify.
kthomas says:
Rachid Ramda, written from isolation at the prison in Val-de-Marne, 2008
Ronit says:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/07/us/07muslim.html?src=twt&twt=nytimes
PTC says:
David- About Hood.
Sad day for the nation. This guy obviously had some screws lose…. I know a person who works in that office… who came out “ok.”
A Army Major with over a decade of service who had never deployed… the Army put this man through Medical School, College… and he does this. Any suggestion that this is about anything other than this individual going off the deep end is complete nonsense.
We must guard against stereotyping when these kinds of things occur. Sad days for the country.
David says:
So, religion had zero to do with this? I doubt that you really believe that, but here is an easy test.
Sadly, there will almost certainly be another military mass shooting in the future. Since Muslims make up much less than 1% of the military, anyone who thinks that religion is irrelevant to these sorts of events ought to believe that there is a less than 1% chance that the shooter in this future case will be Muslim. So, would you offer 100-1 odds on that?
PTC says:
Ronit- Multiple Witnesses report that he yelled “allahu Akbar” before he started shooting.
The analysis of his computers will tell us if that was more than just a prayer prior to murdering over a dozen young people and wounding over a score more.
PTC says:
David- I am not suggesting that religion had nothing to do with it. This may well have been motivated by his own personal religious beliefs… what I am referring to is attempts to “blame this” on others, blame this on “the army”, blame this on “the war” or blame this “on religion”, or blame this “on guns”.. or any other nonsense.
This individual did what he did for “reasons”- those reasons should be fully understood… but this is about him in the end, not something else.
PTC says:
my point is- he is to blame for this. he is responsible. A lot of the chatter in the liberal media is attempting to blame the war.. or blame some kind of psych trauma from war time psychiatry… or blame guns… or blame that soldiers may have mistrusted his faith… or whatever. A lot of the conservative chatter attempts to “blame muslims”. In the end, as stated, this person was an officer with over 10 years of service with negative counseling in his jacket who had never deployed.
I wonder if he would have survived a record like that if not for excuses… that will be interesting to see when the report comes out.
JG says:
@PTC: PTC – there are also multiple witnesses saying he said nothing. We, at this point, don’t know what happened for sure.
Also according to some reports (which obviously may be contradicted), he wanted out of the army so much that he offered to pay back any money spent on his medical training. Obviously it doesn’t work that way, but I think that shows a pretty strong motivation to get out/away. Feeling that strong, for whatever reasons, possibly informs why his particular brand of sociopathic craziness was manifested like this.
A sad day for all involved. The quote above is exactly right – none of this “means” anything, nor do the motivations matter. It is a tragedy.
Jr. Mom says:
Sam Sommers writes thoughtfully on the Ft. Hood incident:
He ends with:
But read the whole article. It is insightful. He is a psychologist, after all.
PTC says:
JG- maybe not everyone heard it. If one soldier says “I heard him say that before he opened fire”… that is enough for me to believe he did, because that is not an event you would remember unless it was so, but after the trauma and confusion, and depending on vantage point, you might not recall that about the incident or you may not have been in a position to hear it.
Exactly JG. Here is a major who is not performing. There are standards in the armed forces. He could have objected to going to war officially and been discharged. The army does not send officers into combat that refuse to go. Instead, he killed a bunch of people. I question more about how he remained in service for so long, especially as an officer, with such an apparently shoddy record. How did he advance to 0-4?
PTC says:
i mean- our tax dollars went into paying this person a lot of money. An 0-4 with an MD makes about 120k a year in salary benefits and bonuses…
PTC says:
Great link jr mom.
One thing for sure… if this Major was as concerned about the treatment of Muslims and stereotypes as being reported, he certainly did not do “his religious group” any favors with his protest of that through mass murder.
ephling says:
No excuses no matter what your political bent can act to ameliorate this creature’s behavior. Our system of law, for that matter any in any civilized society, does not excuse, condone, or tolerate mass murder. They called me a name, well they didn’t but somebody like them did, yeh somebody else who was a soldier, and not like me, you know with a foreign name and a different religion…so I killed them. You make try to feel his pain because it strikes some cord, but to defend his actions in any manner is contemptible. This was mass murder based on hatred and intolerance, his not others.
PTC says:
http://news.aol.com/article/shooting-suspect-consulted-muslim-leader/755185
Not a very pretty picture. It appears he was radicalized by Islamic belief… what was he doing as a major in the Army?
Ronit says:
Sam Sommers ‘97: Illusory Correlation
(whoops, missed that this was posted already, but definitely worth reading)
David says:
Ronit: Thanks for citing Sommers. He reports that:
Exactly correct. Now, these reports may turn out to be false. It could be that Hasan was upset about the Phillies loss in the World Series. But, odds are, his “religious beliefs and experiences may be relevant to what precipitated these killings.” Amazing that Sommers figured this all out since Ronit was mocking me for concluding the same with:
Maybe you ask these same questions, and give this same advice, to Sommers. He agrees with me.
Ronit says:
For extra points, figure out the difference between these two statements, both coming from people with no direct knowledge of Hasan:
and
One of these is a reasonable guess based on the currently available information from the media, the army, and other sources. The other is a statement that assumes far too much certainty and pretends to some kind of “objectivity”, and mocks anyone who did not share the writer’s certainty as soon as they heard the shooter’s name. It also accuses students on WSO who were following the events as they unfolded of “PC silliness” because they did not jump to conclusions immediately.
Jr. Mom says:
David,
I posted Sommers at comment #37. And to be honest, I thought of your reaction when I read his explanation of “illusory correlation”.
Did you read the article? Because fishing out the quote about Hasan’s religion really only serves to illustrate Sommers bigger point about “reaction” and “response”.
He also says:
kthomas says:
Relevant not equal to “the most important factor.” (Personally, I think Hasan’s got Kraut blood in there somewhere, still trying to …) (War ein Witz!)
'12 says:
WE GOT THE GREEN CHICKEN! http://math.williams.edu/green-chicken-competition-november-7/
ephling says:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33819877/ns/us_news-washington_post
Seems almost certain that this was an act of domestic terrorism by an Islamic fundamentalist, PC not withstanding.
'11 says:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/us/10seattle.html?ref=us
Mike McGinn is officially Seattle Mayor!
PTC says:
ephling/ david- The real scandal here is the fact that he still had a job. PC affirmative action nonsense gone insane appears to have kept this person on the job. It’s nuts.
ephling says:
I think it is tragic in the extreme that these 13 souls (14 depending on your view and likely from a legal perspective) were collateral damage. There is a scene in High Noon where someone asks Sheriff Kane (couldn’t be the same Kane could it?) why doesn’t he just arrest the bad guys to which he responds there is no law against standing at the train station. This coward was way over the line with his contacts with Awlaki alone and could have easily been stopped, but it might have offended somebodies sensibilities. Eerily like training people in US flight schools how to fly commercial jets when they have no desire to know how to land them.
M. Esa Seegulam '06 says:
In response to PTC’s post (#33 and 38), I wouldn’t necessarily take their word for it. Occasionally, when I exhale too loud next to a white person on the train, they think I’m saying Allahu Ackbar. Just sayin…
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_13754750?nclick_check=1
Ronit says:
Marc Lynch – Ft. Hood and the Clash of Civilizations: Security vs political correctness revisited
(emphasis mine)
Continue reading here
Ronit says:
More PC silliness:
Ronit says:
But never mind what the Commander-in-Chief says, did you know that David read the shooter’s name this one time and now knows everything there is to know about his motivations?
PTC says:
Ronit- Lynch misses the point completely. This is an extreme case and not the norm. It is an individual case, that need to be looked at.
The Army should look at the ways in which it failed to hold this officer accountable for his actions… or are you suggesting that the Army ignore the facts in this case and act like this is in an individual that would have normally been retained?
rory says:
ptc–you’ve missed lynch/ronit’s point. you and others have berated some nebulous and nefarious “pc” decisions that led to this guy’s horrific crime. On the other hand, a “PC” response to Al-Qaeda is actually the best response.
so which is it–is “pc” evil and vile and to blame or not?
fwiw, in american history, it’s always when the right (or left) wing goes after the military’s procedures that their push falters. Perhaps this might finally be the end of the right’s “PC is evil” meme?
ephling says:
(1)“The real linkage is that there is a strong security imperative to prevent the consolidation of a narrative in which America is engaged in a clash of civilizations with Islam, and instead to nurture a narrative in which al-Qaeda and its affiliates represent a marginal fringe to be jointly combated.”
(2)“That’s especially true of American Muslims.”
(3)“ American reactions which feed AQ’s master narrative, lump together disparate Muslim movements, and tar a wide range of Muslims with the AQ brush therefore serve al-Qaeda’s strategy.
(4)“Americans have learned a lot since 9/11.”
Nice piece written by a smart guy containing not a single fact to support his position.
Point (1) how in the world can they be more marginalized. They live like animals in the mountains and fight with weapons 5 generations removed from ours. There successes are small like 19 recruits on 9/11 and one recruit at Ft. Hood. If people are waiting for their army newsflash they don’t have one. They changed the world with 3 stolen planes and 19 assholes.
Point (2) what does that mean and prove it.
Point (3) so we are to accept the actions of those who declare their intention to do us harm. These deaths although regrettable are acceptable.
Point (4) what does that mean and prove it.
A political position piece, nothing more. Should have ended it with “can we all get along”.
Ronit says:
@ephling:
And this gross misrepresentation is where I stopped reading.
ephling says:
We have something in common, that is the part that upsets me to.