Sunday, 24 February 2008
sluna slams allan rock
SLUNA Slams Allan Rock
"We are of the opinion that the choice of Allan Rock was a poor one"
Thus starts the official report released by SLUNA (Sri Lanka United
National Association of Canada) regarding Allan Rock's investigation
into the use of child soldiers in Sri Lanka.
Read previous posts regarding Allan Rock here and here.
...with his previous Liberal Party baggage, where his party had a
close relationship with the LTTE's front organizations in Canada
for electoral gains in about ten ridings in the Greater Toronto
Area which depended on the promised block voting by the Tamil
Diaspora in return for soft pedalling Canada's anti-terrorism laws
against the LTTE. The exclusion of the LTTE from Canada's
Anti-Terrorism Act by the Liberal Party went against the
recommendations of Canada's Intelligence Services. It was also a
well known fact that the LTTE front organizations paid $7.2 million
for purchase of 60 tons of explosives including 10 tons of RDX from
the Ukraine, which was used in the truck bombing of the Central
Bank in Colombo and packing of 264 suicide body suits worn by Black
Tiger Suicide Bombers to assassinate Rajiv Gandhi of India,
President Premadasa of Sri Lanka, several other Sri Lankan leaders,
and to kill thousands of innocent civilians in that country. It was
also known that 30 percent of the funding for the LTTE was raised
in Canada, but the requisite measures to suppress the financing of
terrorism with Canadian funds in keeping with Canada's
international obligations did not materialize under the Liberals.
There is a high degree of possibility that most of the complainants
were set up by the LTTE to accuse both the Karuna Group that they
seek to liquidate in blood, and at the same time discredit the
Government of Sri Lanka which has been raising the child
recruitment issue to their detriment. The HRW knows having done
other research in respect of extortion of the Tamil Diaspora in
Canada and other western countries, that ordinary Tamils are
extremely fearful of the LTTE and would not voice their views even
though they live 10,000 miles away from the Tiger leader's hole in
the jungles of Mullaitivu, as they know of the harm that can come
to them and their relatives from this ruthless terrorist
organization. What chance have Tamil civilians living in the east
of Sri Lanka, next door to the Tiger Murder Machine, to act against
the orders of the LTTE?
I have already commented on Allan Rock and his 'report' therefore this
top 20 books 13
Top 20 Books, #13
After a one-week hiatus, the top 20 book list returns with number 13,
Salman Rushdie's Midnight's Children.
My junior year at Occidental, I took an amazing class called "World
Literature" from Prof. Modhumita Roy, an associate professor of
English who can best be described as a tiny, sari-clad, with bright,
shining eyes and a winning smile. She was a wonderful professor who
taught a magnificent class covering world literature, but with an
Asian influence. I wish I still had the syllabus from this class and I
have even toyed with contacting Prof. Roy (now at Tufts) and asking
for a new reading list.
To the best of my memory, she introduced us to Jean Rhys' Wide
Sargasso Sea, Ruth Prawer Jhabvala's Heat and Dust, J.M. Coetzee's
Waiting for the Barbarians, Saadat Hasan Manto's short story
collection Kingdom's End and Other Stories, and Salman Rushdie's
Midnight's Children.
There were other titles in there, but these are what pop to mind.
Alas, I read them all, but due to some circumstances, did not get to
or through the Rushdie title. I still feel guilty about missing that
opportunity.
In fact, a year later, I think I ran into Prof. Roy at some English
Department function and confessed that I had managed to skip the book
in her class. She appeared distressed, not that I had traversed her
class without reading an assigned text, but that I had not read this
particular one. "It's such a wonderful book," she quipped in her
proper Queen's English,"you really should give it another go. You
won't regret it."
It took the Ayatollah Khomeini and his fatwa against Rushdie to
finally get me to read Rushdie, and then it was The Satanic Verses.
This title, much maligned, was very difficult, but I discovered while
reading it how wonderful Rushdie's writing was. I struggled through
it, driven by the fact that, despite the tough narrative, I would give
Midnight's Children it's due.
Like someone kicking himself after falling in love with someone who's
been under his nose for years, I embarked on this remarkable novel and
Rushdie skyrocketed to the top of my favorite author's list. I have
since read nearly everything by him (except for his last book Fury and
the recently-released Shalimar the Clown), but Shame, The Moor's Last
Sigh, and The Ground Beneath Her Feet all followed on my reading list
through the years and Rushdie seldom disappoints. Ground Beneath Her
Feet is also truly remarkable.
Midnight's Children tells the tale of the children of India born in
the moments after India attained independence from the British. These
children, spread out across the subcontinent, by chance of their
birth, have each obtained unusual and mystical powers that separate
them from the world. It is a truly wonderful story and I strongly
recommend it to all.
And no, I do not have a hardcover 1st edition, signed or unsigned, of
Midnight's Children. A true first, US edition, unsigned, is $1000 and
up. So if you win the lottery, think of me. Channukah is just around
2006_05_01_archive
Why I Don't Want Iran To Develop Nuclear Weapons
Maybe I should be disappointed that the first photo to go up on my
blog is one of Ahmadinajad, but I found this image (from Reuters)
pretty striking. To me, actually, with the accompanying post title, it
says a lot of what I want to say (a thousand words indeed). On the
other hand, not everyone intuitively shares my thoughts, so I should
write a thing or two.
As anyone who's watching knows, the political maneouvering over Iran's
nuclear program is continuing, with threats of war and annihilation
coming from various parties. If you believe that even a nuclear-armed
Iran may not be as bad as another war in the Middle East at this
point, or possibly even another war anywhere, for that matter, then
this is a time to be worried. As far as I'm concerned, especially
considering the lack of evidence of a nuclear weapons program, keeping
the peace (or as much of it as we can with what's happening in Iraq
and elsewhere in the region) should be our priority, rather than
"stopping Iran at any cost."
On the other hand ...
The idea of Iran developing a nuclear bomb worries me. One of the few
things that I can imagine that's worse than war is nuclear war. While
I'm still skeptical, I don't deny the serious possibility that Iranian
regime could really try to "wipe Israel off the map" given the chance.
Ahmedinejad's rhetoric certainly suggests it, making for one of the
only cases where maybe we should be glad that in Iran, the elected
President's power is as limited as it is. (In my understanding,
although my knowledge of Iranian government is far from exhaustive, he
can be overruled by the clergy on just about anything.)
Then again, considering that the notion of wiping Israel off the map
was apparently inspired by Ayatollah Khomeini himself, it's possible
that enough of the clergy share Ahmedinejad's potential goal. One
reason why I'm skeptical, though, is that I don't buy the argument
that the leaders of Iran are crazy, suicidal, or both, and you'd
almost certainly have to be that in order to start a nuclear conflict.
I'd try to demonstrate that they're not, but it's difficult to prove a
negative. All I can say is that I've seen little evidence of a
positive. Bottom line, though, is that I'd rather not see the regime
control nuclear weapons, and only be able to speculate as to whether
or not they would choose to use them. And I wouldn't wish a nuclear
attack on anyone ... Arab, Israeli, or what have you.
There are also other potential concerns, such as an emboldened Iran
seeking to dominate the Persian Gulf and/or Middle East, with noone
being able to effectively deter it. However, if I were one to call for
all-out war against any country that would use military superiority to
dominate the Arab world and attempt to impose its values on it, then
the United States would be just as deserving of my attacks as Iran, if
not moreso, and yet here I am not calling for war against them either.
It's not that I don't care ... far from it. I would just rather
confront threats peacefully so long as there is an opportunity to do
so.
But there's another reason why I'm concerned about Iran developing a
nuclear weapon, and that's the possibility that it might provoke a
Middle Eastern nuclear arms race. This has been brought up by a number
of people, of course. The idea is that Sunni Saudi Arabia, for
example, would never accept to be that much weaker than Shi'ite Iran,
and so would develop or buy its own bomb. After that, Egypt wouldn't
stand for Saudi Arabia (its rival for Arab leadership) being
militarily superior, and so it too would develop a bomb. And after
that, as Tom Lehrer would say, "Who's next?"
Being Egyptian, Arab, and Muslim, this scenario doesn't worry me from
the "There's no way we can let those people get the bomb" perspective.
My concern is a little more abstract than that. To put it simply, it's
a question of national character.
One of the four theories of morality that I know of, as outlined in
Western philosophy, is Aristotle's virtue- or character-based
morality. This can be summed up humourously in Forrest's Gump's
"Stupid is as stupid does" or inspiringly (and more accurately) in
Ghandi's "You must be the change you want to see in the world." Much
like the other three theories (Kant's duty-based morality, Hegel's
social contract theory, and utilitarianism) I see this as more of a
guideline than a provable definition of what is moral. However, I have
to say that character-based morality appeals to me, and that I think
it can apply to nations as much as individuals.
Based on this, what can we say about the "character" of a
nuclear-armed country? At the risk of over-generalizing, I would argue
that such a character would be marked by increased fearfullness,
aggressiveness, and perhaps even arrogance, just to name a few
negative qualities. An interesting contrast here would be the
difference between the United States and Canada. I'm not saying that
America (nuclear-armed) is fundamentally fearful, aggressive, and
arrogant, whereas Canada (not nuclear-armed) never demonstrates the
slightest hint of any of these qualities. But from what I've seen,
America displays more of these qualities than Canada does, certainly
in its foreign policy, if nowhere else.
Why doesn't Canada develop nuclear weapons, one might ask? After all,
is its neighbour to the south not the only country in history that has
used nuclear weapons? And even if relations between Canada and the
U.S. are excellent, does it not make sense to prepare for the worst,
if things should turn nasty in the future? After all, America also has
a history of violent intervention in countries possessing "vital"
resources, namely oil for the last 50 years or so. They say that in
the future, water will be the "new oil," and Canada (if memory serves)
may just have the largest supply of fresh water in the world.
On that note, I remember attending the local candidates' debate here
in Kingston before the last election (saw Peter Milliken in person and
everything), and hearing both the Green Party and Canadian Action
Party (never heard of the latter before that day) candidates say that
it would be naive to assume that America wouldn't turn its eyes to our
water when things got serious. However, neither of them said anything
(to the best of my memory) about militarily (let alone nuclear-ly)
arming ourselves to prepare for such a prospect. Nor did any of the
other candidates.
The reason, I'd like to think, is that as Canadians, we wouldn't allow
ourselves to become the sort of country that pursues the capacity to
kill millions for no better reason than "just in case." Speaking for
myself, I can say that I don't like what that would say about us. If
we give in to that fear of a far-from-confirmed future, and assume the
most aggressive conceivable response accordingly, then we would be
affirming negative character traits that would then have an increased
influence on all of us.
But what if we're not doing it "just in case," or to be able to impose
our will on others? What if there is a clear threat that necessitates
such an armament? If we're talking about morality, there's an argument
to be made that what one does out of necessity, with a gun to the
head, for example, cannot really be taken as an indication of one's
moral character, since questions of morality come hand-in-hand with
having a choice (let's temporarily ignore the choice to die in the
'gun to the head' scenario).
The question is: what constitutes a 'gun to the head' scenario? Is it
when a person threatens to hurt you, when that person threatens to
kill you, when that person is holding a gun, when the gun is aimed at
your head, or when it's aimed at your head and you know for sure that
the person is willing to shoot? The answer to that question requires
several value judgements, and those value judgements are
representations of one's morality.
Bringing this back to Egypt: when do we decide that it's necessary to
develop nuclear weapons? When our next-door neighbour, a country with
a history of violent expansion, develops the power to destroy us while
refusing to assume the responsibility of admitting to possessing that
power? When the world's largest super-power seems to be losing its
inhibitions when it comes to military intervention in our
neighbourhood? When regional rivals develop them? Which of these
developments would make it worth our while to go from being a voice of
moderation and reconciliation in our region (for the most part) to a
hand waving a big, threatening weapon?
Personally, I don't know if it would ever be necessary for us, us
being Canada or Egypt, to pursue this course. I also doubt that it's
necessary for the nuclear armed countries around today to keep their
weapons, although I don't believe that there's any chance of
convincing them to scrap those. However, I can hope that at least some
of us can avoid the temptation of that sort of power. And insofar as
moral character is important, I believe we will be better for it.
And since we're talking about Egypt, let me end with a quote from
Ahmad Shawqi, a 19th/20th century Egyptian poet, and easily one of the
most famous in Egypt's history:
we are childrenwe are world
We are the children...we are the world
"The Bush administration is expected to allow children aged 15 or
younger with parental consent to be allowed to cross the borders at
land and sea entry points with a certified copy of their birth
certificates rather than passports." AP Feb 22 2007
The above news reminds me of the children who have no birth
certificates. Generally, a registered hospital or clinic provides
birth certificate as soon as a child was born. However, I wonder how
many illegal Burmese migrant women in Thailand have a chance to
delivery their offsprings in those Thai hospitals and clinics.
Usually, they come to an unregistered clinic known as Dr Cynthia's Mae
Toe Clinic which welcomes every human being indiscriminately.
A piece of paper that the clinic provides to the patient is called a
birth record which includes a signature of a nurse or mid-wife from
the clinic with records such as birth time and date, weight of an
infant and name of the mother. The data of those child births were
kept on old and low quality papers of the clinic which often has to
negotiate with Thai authorities to get a tiny space on the land of
Thai people.
On the crowded market streets of Mae Sot, many children in dirty
outfits are meandering. Those country-less children were born in
Thailand. They are not only neglected by their illegal migrant parents
from Burma but also both of the Burmese and Thai governments. No one
except child traffickers cares their existence. Often, those children
are gazing around the snack bars. Sometimes, they are staring at other
children who are in Thai school uniforms and waiting for their school
bus coming.
Those pictures generated an idea to a group of people who founded the
Committee for Protection and Promotion of Child Right (Burma) or
CPPCR. Currently, the committee is providing a birth certificate and
child certificate with the approval of Dr. Cynthia Maung who is a head
of the Mae Tao Clinic and chair of the committee.
Although the Mae Sot Burmese migrants these days receive the CPPCR
approval birth-certificates and can send their children to schools in
Mae Sot, the CPPCR is still facing many barriers and ways to overcome
their issued birth-certificates to be recognized as legal and be fully
used locally and internationally. In this situation, the CPPCR
certificates are, meantime, helping to protect chidren from those
unscrupulous child traffickers and child sex exploiters in the border
town.
One day, I believe that our innocent children will have a chance to
become a full citizen of a peaceful country where they can fly as far
as they can.
should you medicate your childs mind
On Dec. 13, 2006, 4-year-old Rebecca Riley died, drowning in her own
lung secretions. Her death was the direct result of psychiatric
medications which had been prescribed to her for a presumed diagnosis
of bipolar disorder -- a diagnosis first given to her when she was
only 2 years old.
In September 2007, researchers at Columbia University reported that
there had been a 40-fold increase in the number of children diagnosed
with bipolar disorder from 1994 to 2003 -- an increase which has shown
no signs of slowing.
Worse than the current frenzy to diagnose children with bipolar
disorder is the practice of medicating kids as young as 2 with the
kinds of psychiatric medications that were once prescribed only to
psychotic adults. The shocking reality is that the use of these potent
anti-psychotic drugs in children increased more than 500 percent
between 1993 and 2002.
This dramatic rise in childhood bipolar disorder has spurred a raging
debate in the mental health field. Some psychiatrists insist that this
incredible increase is entirely due to the identification of mentally
ill children who had been previously overlooked.
Yet a 4,000 percent increase in childhood mental illness, specifically
bipolar disorder, is simply implausible and difficult to justify based
solely on improved diagnostic techniques. To the contrary, in the
30-plus years that I have been treating, educating and caring for
children -- half of that time as a child psychiatrist -- I have found
that the approach to diagnostics in psychiatry clearly has
deteriorated over time, not improved.
There was a time when doctors insisted on hours of evaluation with a
child and his parents before venturing a psychiatric diagnosis or
prescribing a medication. Today many of my colleagues brag that they
can complete an initial assessment of a child and write a prescription
in less than 20 minutes. Many parents have told me it took a previous
doctor less than five minutes to diagnose and medicate their child.
How, then, is it possible that in 2007 doctors are now able to
identify hundreds of thousands of previously missed cases of bipolar
disorder in children by reducing the time they spend with patients
from multiple hours to just a few minutes?
On the other hand, there simply is no possible way that the number of
children who actually have bipolar disorder has increased from
approximately 20,000 to 800,000 in a nine-year period. Yet the
arguments of skeptics are being dismissed by academics in psychiatry.
Research psychiatrists appear to be more invested in defending their
research conclusions -- funded by pharmaceutical companies -- than
engaging in a meaningful discussion to examine these preposterous
demographics.
What I find more astounding than the claim that there are 800,000
American children with bipolar disorder is the fact that there are
that many children whose conduct is so aberrant that their parents are
seeking psychiatric treatment for them.
The symptoms, which are regarded as evidence of bipolar disorder,
usually are what most people recognize as ordinary belligerence.
Children who have anger outbursts, who refuse to go to bed, who are
moody and self-centered under the current standard of care in child
psychiatry are being diagnosed with bipolar disorder. To most rational
human beings, these behaviors describe an ill-mannered, immature and
poorly disciplined child. Nonetheless, the temper tantrums of
belligerent children are increasingly being characterized by doctors
as the mood swings of bipolar disorder.
The over-indulgent parenting practices of the past 20 years have
created a generation of dysfunctional children who are becoming
increasingly more entitled, defiant and oppositional. In a poll by
Associated Press-Ipsos, 93 percent of people surveyed said that
today's parents are not doing a good job when it comes to teaching
their kids to behave. According to Dan Kindlon, a Harvard
psychologist, 50 percent of the parents he interviewed described
themselves as more permissive than their parents had been.
The permissive parents of spoiled children seek refuge from blame by
using the excuse that their child's angry outbursts are the result of
a chemical imbalance. Since a psychiatric condition is completely
beyond a parent's control, a diagnosis of bipolar disorder is the
perfect alibi. Once a child has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder,
a parent feels absolved of guilt or responsibility for the child's
misbehavior and therefore, the parents' discipline practices cannot be
called into question.
Parents looking for a psychiatric explanation for their child's
misbehavior will find an abundance of support in the media and on the
Web for the conclusion that their child's temper tantrums are due to a
psychiatric disease rather than the result of bad parenting.
Psychiatrists, for their part, are more than willing to accept,
without question, the assessment offered by a parent. Doctors have
found it easier and less contentious to comply with a parent's wish to
have their child diagnosed with a psychiatric condition than to
confront the parent with the notion that their own weak parenting is
the root cause of the child's aberrant behavior.
Using the diagnosis of bipolar disorder, doctors then justify the
sedation of these children with powerful psychiatric drugs. Even
though some children treated with anti-psychotics may be temporarily
sedated, their belligerent attitude continues unchanged. Of the many
children I treat every year who had been previously diagnosed with
bipolar disorder, not one of them stopped throwing tantrums after
being treated with psychiatric medications. Yet doctors continue to
misdiagnose and overmedicate children to appease frustrated parents in
spite of the many serious, permanent or even lethal side effects.
Tragically, as in the death of Rebecca Riley, her parents administered
the multiple medications prescribed by their psychiatrist for
Rebecca's "bipolar disorder" until the meds killed her. A few weeks
ago, in an interview on 60 Minutes, Rebecca's mother told Katie Couric
that she now believes that her four-year-old daughter had been
misdiagnosed, had never been bipolar, and that Rebecca was simply
mischievous.
When it comes to misdiagnosing and overmedicating children, doctors
have an unwitting, though not unwilling, accomplice -- the parent.
Ultimately, it is the parent who is the gatekeeper for their child's
health-care delivery. It is the parent who pursues psychiatric
treatment for their child, fills the prescriptions and administers the
medications. Parents have a duty to protect their children from the
folly of this disastrous approach to childhood behavior problems.
Instead of grooming, feeding and educating the next generation of
Americans to be the fittest, brightest, most competent contributors on
the planet, we have indulged, placated and spoiled our children into
dysfunctional misfits. We are teaching our children to use a
psychiatric diagnosis to excuse their antisocial behaviors. This will
inevitably lead to a greater reliance on psychiatric medications,
which unfortunately do not endow an individual with improved
self-control or maturity.
Under the guise of treating childhood bipolar disorder, the spoiling
of American children not only undermines their healthy social
development, but it also puts them at great risk for the serious
medical complications inherent in the use of psychiatric medications,
including death.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)