Pakistan – The Threat From Within

Arjun writes <<< what productive value does a sociologist - especially a failed one - bring to the economy? >>>

A lot, Project Camelot that wanted to ensure a booming US economy by dominating Latin American countries didn`t ask for economists to devise plans in which ``utility`` might be maximized,nooo they didn`t do that, they knew better they were tying to hire sociologists, alright, and on the flip side sociologists that know the workings of the whole (i.e. structure) can better educate the masses to demand their due from the system and thus give them life, health and political power through consciousness, as well as prevent economic collapse due to capitalist anarchy. Need more reasons to study sociology? Of course not because the damn fool that you are, you`d sell your mama for a few bucks and that would be a fine addition to any ``economy``. Get a conscience fool,.....

Folio writes <<< I cant remeber any expert Max Weber, Emile Durkhiem, Karl Marx or RK Merton talking abt this `social structure` >>>

Really, what would the sum total of ``social facts`` discussed by Emile Durkheim or his mechanical vs organic solidarity be? What would Max Weber`s rationalization of social structure refer to? A hamburger? What about super structure and substructure that Marx talked about and RK Merton wrote a whole damn book, lying on my desk right now and the title reads: `` Social Theory and Social Structure``

Now, run along with Arjun who can only respond with slogans and don`t waste my time...

GT writes <<< Though I still claim that masadi knows zilch about economics and statistics, >>>

My dear friend, I know a little more than ``Zilch`` about economics and statistics, I have a BS degree, summa cum laude in Economics, top of my class, from a state university in the US, not the best of course but a fully accredited one of good repute. As for stats, you cannot get a degree in soc without studying it at fairly advanced levels,

Sincerely,

Re: # 357 by arjun2

Let alone masadi, I will go ahead and assert that these UN, World Bank and IMF types know sh** about economics and statistics. As Stiglitz said these institutions are filled with third rate students from first rate institutions (not that Stiglitz himself does not get carried away at times).

Take this relationship between GDP and poverty that chaltahai talks about ... mainstream economists will laugh at this idea. Bhagwati and Sachs are way past their prime and mostly talk to policy types where essentially you sell bullsh**.

Finally, do not get me wrong. Though I still claim that masadi knows zilch about economics and statistics, he is much better than many of my students who are in the IMF and the WB today. In fact, those who we refuse to send to the academic market end up in these institutions. Don`t trust me call and ask any prof., you know, in any decent univ.

Cheers.

#356 by GT on June 6, 2007 7:58am PT

sociologists know a lot about poverty...most of them are poor, unable to make a honest buck that isn`t taxpayer dole...There are a lot of rich writers and economists..their skills have practical applications..sociology is just a field imported from the imperial west..I`m sure there`s a US elite somewhere who made good money selling books on sociology....

Re: # 346 by masadi:

``Economists don`t know sh** about poverty.``

And you sir, don`t know sh** about economics .... and statistics.

it`s not funny dude...every paisa paid to masadi for his useless course is a paisa that could have been spent on some real education for abdul jr...Do you think abdul jr is better served by a course that has reading material from andrew tannenbaum or one that recycles socialist bull crap from mills?

As it is, and I`m sure masadi knows it, Pakiland spends a lot more on it`s military than it does on education..in fact, the numbers are exactly the opposite of those in India..

While scarce education resources are being spent on sociology, a field imported from the imperial west, abdul paki is forced to send his kid to a saudi funded madrassah where the only contact with real books is when he takes over a library demanding sharia..

Arjun,

U are no longer a cut-paste Chowkie. Original ideas are welcome here. Well said:-)

all of masadi`s skills in sociology aren`t good enough to earn him a honest buck..what productive value does a sociologist - especially a failed one - bring to the economy? All his sociologist theories don`t amount to a hill of beans...

masadi: you are a third grade sociologist who couldn`t hack it in an American university and had to go back to the land of the pure to take job where temporary German faculty, probably well paid, is thrust upon you. You are a failure as a writer which explains why you are only getting published by lulu.com.

you don`t know your ass from your elbow..and if you do, it`s only because your brain is is in your ass..

Now go back and chew on the news report I posted about the paki government fooling pakis about the GDP numbers....

Asadi,

I imagined u as a learned man but u dont look that. U look more like a prisoner of language. U use English language to show-off ur `perceived skills` as a commentator of issues, though u have none.

>>...traced to a social structure that devalues and stratifies humanity, objectifies it as a thing to be used and assigns status...<<

Stupid professor, can u tell us what the social structure u have in the US? I still remeber my UPSC Mains-level sociology. I cant remeber any expert Max Weber, Emile Durkhiem, Karl Marx or RK Merton talking abt this `social structure`. Tell me if u found some structure and codified that in the corpus of Socilogy literature?

U cant distinguish btw the US foreign policy (Rudolph`s comment) and internal social policies or general shared consciousness that all laws in the US conform to the unwritten code of humanity!

U need to unlearn a lot, stupid professor.

In addition,

(Quote) Wednesday, June 6, 2007. (Reuters)

``You shouldn`t take any options off the table,`` said the leader in the Republican pack, former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, when asked whether a tactical nuclear strike might be necessary.``

(end Quote)

A society which cheers such ``macho`` rhetoric cannot surely be expected to value life- not to mention that objective facts that exist in their history for which consent is always manufactured, regardless of the barbarity of the proposed or completed action...

Folio writes <<< There is no set social structure in the US as we have in India and Pakistan and the American society DOESN`T devalue humanity >>>

Don`t try to teach me about American society, I not only have academic knowledge about it, I also have personal experience living in that society for over a decade and manage to combine both in my writings. Virginia tech (and how the media treated it) was NOT an exceptional occurrence or what the public wanted to hear. The media contours public opinions (as revealed time and again by opinion polls), it builds desires and sells policies and products, none of this would be possible were we to take your explanation of the media only broadcasts what the ``public`` wants to hear. Regarding Al Jaz, Bin Laden finds it very convenient to supply them with videos that become fodder for the American media, it`s location in Qatar, a US military satellite state, and how it has managed to build legitimacy among the Arabs, reeks of being another one of the CIA`s many media concerns.

The VT massacre was not a ``personal`` issue of the student involved, many go through similar ``personal`` troubles that are not person specific but can be traced to a social structure that devalues and stratifies humanity, objectifies it as a thing to be used and assigns status based on things the means to achieve which it provides only to a few; neither are these occurrences like the VT massacre this widespread in other societies for us to conclude that it was a psychological abberation of a person responding to personal troubles. Finally about the US media, it is not ``nilly willy`` broadcast to the rest of the world. The culture industry of the USA is very active in promoting violence, materialism and US dominance through implicit means to the rest of the world. The picture of the US presented by this media is not the same as the REAL America, as people well know, not demographically, not materially and neither in excitement- as people living the predictible, bureaucratic dull life of the US understand well, those that are not intoxicated by movies that is.

p.s. I stand by my assertion that you are an idiot where it comes to understanding the US and the world.....

Sincerely,

Not becoz they are in the payroll of the CIA and US Admin but bcoz the coverage is meant for the American public but willy nilly broadcast to the WHOLE world.

The reasons for this willy nilly are: Business (money) and the receptive audience outside the US. Ppl outside the US like the things that are American. Now we have Al Jazeera (English). I watch this a lot as I am sick of the CNN. Again, I am getting sick of AJ as it`s focussing only on arab standpoint.

May be it`s impossible to have a perfect news orgn that`s not pandering to any audiences.

Asadi,

Now I know why u write such lengthy sentences (coz u are a teacher).

Now let me separate the article into 3 groups. a. Virginia Tech Massacre b. Iraq Invasion
c. Media coverage in the US as a proxy to American dominance.

In my view VT massacre is a personal issue of one Korean immigrant

Iraq war, as what they say in the American media, is a lie. It`s Amercian invasion (British media uses the latter expression).

Media coverage is ur big complaint. I understand that. American media has this global reach. Even when they are beaming their programmes to the ppl of Cambodia, the newscasters in CNN & Fox parrot the same stuff that it`s meant to be addressed to the American public. ( CNN has different wings like CNN Asia, Europe etc but main news is the same to all the wings).

WHY THEY DO THIS?

Not becoz they are in the payroll of the CIA and US Admin but bcoz the coverage is meant for the American public but willy nilly broadcast to the WHOLE world.

>>the social structure in which people`s lives are lived in the US, one that objectifies and devalues humanity and has grades of worth assigned to different lives based on how close they are to the US elite<<

There is no set social structure in the US as we have in India and Pakistan and the American society DOESN`T devalue humanity. In the developed world, human being is at the centre of all laws and policies.

>>>Why is it that the person responded the way that he did, what role does the cultural apparatus in the US play in such reactions and why do such episodes happen moreso in that society<<<

NRA, I think. This rifle carrying was a necessity in the initial stages of American history. It (rifle carrying) was meant to subjugate the Indians (US) there. Otherwise I dont see why they needed them (bcoz the same goras b4 migration to the US were not using them in native Europe).

I am always puzzled as to why they still insist on having a right to carry fire arms. Lobbies are very powerful in the US (Pl see `Distinguished Gentleman` 2 know more). Gun lobby is no less.

>>You on the other hand do not understand any of these things...<<

Finally, thanks 4 realising that I am dumb idiot.

chaltahai writes <<< A second year student of economics knows the relationship between elasticity of poverty vis-a-vis the rate of GDP growth >>>

Economists don`t know sh** about poverty. Regardless of growth in GDP poverty remains more or less constant unless drastic measures are taken to improve distribution and none of the dominant institutions, that are ensuring growth in India, emphasise that. The poperty percent around the globe has stayed more or less the same but what that means is that almost double the number of people live in live in poverty today than did in the previous generation due to population increase.

India cannot approach the GDP of the US, yet a large percentage of the population has constantly been below the poverty line in the US even given its crude measures of poverty (India`s are much more cruder like I said) I have read many UNDP reports and they are the ones whose stats I was quoting. How come the World Bank says that more people per every 100 live in poverty in India than Pakistan, where is your magic number there? Fewer have access to clean water than in Pakistan, More children are underweight than in Pakistan. More people have a lesser life expectancy than 40 at birth compared to Pakistan. Which ``economist`` is going to save you given these FACTS? You cannot answer even one of these and so resort to BS concepts like the ``elasticity of poverty``. If calculating a number was that easy, poverty would not have existed in the world today. As is the problem with all economics, social structure and decisions taken within them are ignored and utilitarian/hedonistic principles that assume equality of all are emphasised. The world does not work this way. Skimming the surplus regardless of 100% growth in GDP will result in zero poverty allevation and the only allevation you will see is in atrociously crude measures of poverty, invented to deceive the masses, and MIT peons like other IVY league peons have mastered in doing just that, the level of your ``real`` scholarship is evident for all to see. All you can muster is say read this report, read that report and you don`t know what the content of the report is neither do you know where it is located....