jan 23rd, 2007
why is it that some indian-origin pundits in the US are such asses?
eg. 1) farid zakaria who just about fell over genuflecting to rahul gandhi, groveling that newsweek intl had made a mistake in suggesting that rahul gandhi's academic credentials are dubious (which in fact they are. young raoul does not appear to have actually graduated from any college anywhere in the world. but then he's following in the esteemed footsteps of his father, mother and grandmother. after j. nehru, the first dynasty scion to actually graduate with a degree -- any degree -- was varun. not that college degrees mean that much, but to not even make it through advanced basket-weaving at rollins college is quite an achievement.)
2) this dinesh d'souza who (per tallindian) is happy that mohammedans did not kill all hindus in india even though they could have (well, there's a good reason for that, the hindus resisted and they resisted continously and vigorously with armed force. the mohammedans did kill all others in egypt and persia, and christists did kill all others in europe, because they did not resist)
dsouza's premise that the left in the us is treacherous is worth considering, but his embrace of jehadi mohammedans shows he's doing the equivalent of taking off his clothes to attract attention.
but i do think it's delicious that he pinpoints that minor twerp martha nussbaum (amartya sen's jilted old squeeze) as a prominent villain: she's no philosopher, she's a foul-mouthed banshee.
it is embarrassing that this fellow has an indian name, and is associated with stanford.