Learn from the mistakes of others

For 175 years the sect has counted among its strange proscriptions ... an absolute ban on worldly politics.

For 175 years the sect has counted among its strange proscriptions ... an absolute ban on worldly politics.

Friday, June 02, 2006
Rwanda radio broadcaster sentenced to six years for inciting genocide
Joshua Pantesco at 1:54 PM ET

[JURIST] The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) [official website] on Friday sentenced Joseph Serugendo [case materials] to six years in prison [press release] for direct and public incitement to commit genocide and persecution as a crime against humanity under a plea agreement where the ICTR dropped the more serious charges of genocide, conspiracy to commit genocide and complicity to commit genocide in exchange for Serugendo's guilty plea. Serugendo is the former technical director of a Rwandan radio station that promoted the 1994 Rwandan genocide [HRW backgrounder; JURIST news archive], and admitted to the ICTR that he provided technical assistance and moral support to broadcast anti-Tutsi messages over the airwaves.

The tribunal considered Serugendo's terminal illness and his cooperation with the tribunal in the decision to limit his sentence to only six years in prison. Serugendo was arrested in September 2005 and initially pleaded not guilty [JURIST report] to the charges.

For more, http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200606/s1654389.htm.
Also UN News Centre has additional coverage.

Friday, June 02, 2006
Rwanda radio broadcaster sentenced to six years for inciting genocide
Joshua Pantesco at 1:54 PM ET

[JURIST] The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) [official website] on Friday sentenced Joseph Serugendo [case materials] to six years in prison [press release] for direct and public incitement to commit genocide and persecution as a crime against humanity under a plea agreement where the ICTR dropped the more serious charges of genocide, conspiracy to commit genocide and complicity to commit genocide in exchange for Serugendo's guilty plea. Serugendo is the former technical director of a Rwandan radio station that promoted the 1994 Rwandan genocide [HRW backgrounder; JURIST news archive], and admitted to the ICTR that he provided technical assistance and moral support to broadcast anti-Tutsi messages over the airwaves.

The tribunal considered Serugendo's terminal illness and his cooperation with the tribunal in the decision to limit his sentence to only six years in prison. Serugendo was arrested in September 2005 and initially pleaded not guilty [JURIST report] to the charges.

For more, http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200606/s1654389.htm.
Also UN News Centre has additional coverage.

I find it interesting how many of those who label contemporary evolutionary theory as 'neoDarwinism' have no background in science. Indeed, as soon as someone uses the term I am immediately on alert to identify whether they are in the religious camp or the political one.

Back in my days as an undergraduate biology student (I majored in molecular biology, genetics, and microbiology) I attended a lecture on the philosophy of science over the other side fo the campus in philosophy. I was curious, and hoping to date one of the class. The lecturer didn't get halfway before we were in a stand-up shouting match (he began the shouting).

As a third-year biology major, I was well aware of the models of science used by scientists. This guy mentioned the prevailing models in science in passing ... and launched into some esoteric stuff about power and hegemony. Then it was on ...

Scientists are under no illusions about the power of the dominant ideas in science. The whole point of peer review and so forth is to find a balance between accepted ideas and challenges. But science is an *empirical* process, not merely a bunch of guys arguing over a few beers (though we do that too).

Sociologists, and other social scientists, seem to have significant difficulties really understanding what science is - they are under some illusion that if they don't understand it, no one else does either ...

As to the methods used by the various factions arrayed against contemporary science, they all read form the same book of propaganda techniques. The past hundred years or so have seen huge developments in the art and science of propaganda - driven largely by advertising (the oft overlooked 'benign' 'version'). Anyone can hire a PR/Marketing/Ad Monkey, or read a book, or take a course. The principles are pretty consistent.

No one has a monopoly on self-reification. And presuming that "if I don't get it, no one else does either" (and it's opposite) is a common psychological game that makes people feel better. Otherwise, simplistic, irrational ideologies would be far less common than they are.

I find it interesting how many of those who label contemporary evolutionary theory as 'neoDarwinism' have no background in science. Indeed, as soon as someone uses the term I am immediately on alert to identify whether they are in the religious camp or the political one.

Back in my days as an undergraduate biology student (I majored in molecular biology, genetics, and microbiology) I attended a lecture on the philosophy of science over the other side fo the campus in philosophy. I was curious, and hoping to date one of the class. The lecturer didn't get halfway before we were in a stand-up shouting match (he began the shouting).

As a third-year biology major, I was well aware of the models of science used by scientists. This guy mentioned the prevailing models in science in passing ... and launched into some esoteric stuff about power and hegemony. Then it was on ...

Scientists are under no illusions about the power of the dominant ideas in science. The whole point of peer review and so forth is to find a balance between accepted ideas and challenges. But science is an *empirical* process, not merely a bunch of guys arguing over a few beers (though we do that too).

Sociologists, and other social scientists, seem to have significant difficulties really understanding what science is - they are under some illusion that if they don't understand it, no one else does either ...

As to the methods used by the various factions arrayed against contemporary science, they all read form the same book of propaganda techniques. The past hundred years or so have seen huge developments in the art and science of propaganda - driven largely by advertising (the oft overlooked 'benign' 'version'). Anyone can hire a PR/Marketing/Ad Monkey, or read a book, or take a course. The principles are pretty consistent.

No one has a monopoly on self-reification. And presuming that "if I don't get it, no one else does either" (and it's opposite) is a common psychological game that makes people feel better. Otherwise, simplistic, irrational ideologies would be far less common than they are.

Smart card would trump Australia Card
smh.com.au March 29, 2006

Smart card would trump Australia Card
smh.com.au March 29, 2006

Humanism and Terror
(What Are You Going to Do With That?)
MARK DANNER

[The following is based on the commencement address given to the graduating students of the Department of English of the University of California at Berkeley in the Hearst Greek Theatre, May 15, 2005.]

( Read more... )

Humanism and Terror
(What Are You Going to Do With That?)
MARK DANNER

[The following is based on the commencement address given to the graduating students of the Department of English of the University of California at Berkeley in the Hearst Greek Theatre, May 15, 2005.]

( Read more... )