Tee-hee

Michael O'Hare unleashes some hilarious righteous anger on the State Department:

Of course the State Department tradition of stupidity and ignorance, matched as precisely and properly as gray slacks with a navy blazer, is long over. The exclusion of Nalini Ghuman from the US in August '06 after a decade of living here and teaching music at Mills College, on the strength of a State Department finding, might seem to be some sort of anachronistic debacle; indeed, one of our faithful readers hipped me to the story all indignant and angry about it. But I know that reader to be a Democrat, therefore ceaselessly working for the collapse of America, and she's not fooling me for a minute. Read the story (remembering of course that it's shot through with the Times' lefty defeatist bias), and now I wish to explain why this episode is actually a reassuring occasion for pride in our leadership: Ghuman is a foreigner. She plays the violin (see her photograph, redhanded with that vile instrument), which is much too hard for anyone not a fanatic, and anyway also foreign. Her scholarly specialty is Edward Elgar, a known, admitted Brit unrepentant to the day he died, who would be ducking out of Basra right now if he were alive and a soldier. In Basra. His Pomp and Circumstance March #1 is played at graduation in universities with liberal pinko treasonous faculties, specifically to corrupt youth by secret mental tricks well known to foreign terrorist musicologists.

Too bad it's not actually funny.

Comments

This was a truly depressing story. You'd think the prospect of returning to Bay Area academia after her current job is over would prompt Condi to intervene personally and straighten this idiocy out, before she finds herself persona non grata in the regional chamber music world.

Posted by brooksfoe | September 18, 2007 9:33 AM

But, incidentally, we were noting approvingly in a thread some days back that it's now a lot harder for radical Muslims to enter the US due to tougher border procedures.

Is tragic stupidity like Ghuman's case an inevitable side effect of those procedures? Or does it result from an unfortunate eagerness to engage in ethnic stereotyping that feeds on a combination of unworldliness and paranoia, and which could be avoided with a different kind of institutional culture at TSA?

Posted by brooksfoe | September 18, 2007 9:38 AM

One the one hand you hope that it is something serious, like she is a spy for a foreign power, and they are being kind in keeping her out like this.

On the other hand as someone who has delt with the US INS officers at Canada's many border crossings with the Republic, I can attest to a certain rude, paranoid and violent stupidity that inhabits some of these people. And once they make a mistake, for the sake of the institution, they can never ever admit that they are wrong. It's ugly and dehumanising.

The only solution is to make it as transparent, rather than as secretive process, as possible. Why is Ghuman persona non grata in the US? What is the charge? That should be public information in 9 out of 10 cases.

Posted by Northern Observer | September 18, 2007 10:24 AM

The only solution is to make it as transparent, rather than as secretive process, as possible.

As you can see from the article, many areas of the bureaucracy are well-used to using various privacy act concerns as a reason to not share such information. In some cases, they're even quite correct about the law; if a person targeted wishes to misrepresent the details of a decision to the media and others, the government cannot correct them without violating privacy law. (Not that I'm suggesting that it's happening in this case, but it definitely has.)

Posted by John Thacker | September 18, 2007 10:51 AM

Is there a problem with what happened? I mean, this vile creature teaching at a Leftist, pinko-to-commie institution gets her come-uppance, and we're supposed to let that define our thoughts for the day? Admittedly, the thick fingered writer wasn't able to minimally reach the heights of clothes-pressing, for those who appreciate ferrous oxides in all of its subtleties.

After all, Ghuman plays a violin - in Micki & Maude the lead actress played a stringed instrument and subverted poor old Micki's marriage, and in real life Amy Irving studied in San Francisco, and is/was a leading Left-leaner in the Hollywood circles, even being married to one of the top Hollywood types, Spielberg.

So, this very direct connection between the two is nothing more than representing the real danger the country is placed in when you have someone from the Bay Area who plays violins, cellos, whatever (even on celluloid), goes to one of those higher institutions that is known for its Left-leaners, then voila, what else can I say? Besides, I'm sure they both have dark hair.

Posted by altruist1 | September 18, 2007 10:52 AM

You'd think the prospect of returning to Bay Area academia after her current job is over would prompt Condi to intervene personally and straighten this idiocy out, before she finds herself persona non grata in the regional chamber music world.

That actually would be a setback for her. Nobody will jam with her.

Anyway, just because the NYT claims there's no reason doesn't mean there isn't one. And if there isn't one, why is that surprising either? It's not to those who do not have a charitable view of government bureaucracies. It's not news that they screw up or that they do things just because they can.

Posted by Kwyjibo | September 18, 2007 11:43 AM

brooksfoe,

From reading some of your posts you sure do seem to have a dictatorial way of looking at things, albeit on the seemingly benevolent side.

"You'd think the prospect of returning to Bay Area academia after her current job is over would prompt Condi to intervene personally "

So Condi is supposed to circumvent the system in the process in place simply because?

It pleases you?
She likes this person?
Other people like this person?
She got an article written about her while many others didn't?

There is a process in place for these things. If you are not satisfied with it we can/should lobby government to make changes. But I really don't understand why someone would insist on having our "rulers" in government interject themseves individually into every issue that crosses the radar screen is a good thing. Having people in government that not only have the ability but a desire and zeal to micromanage every affair that gets their attention is not a good thing.

Posted by sam | September 18, 2007 1:38 PM

While this article seems outrageous, we really don't know anything about why she was barred entry. Her advocates obviously think that it's absurd and that she should be let in. It does seem like someone should give her some indication of why she isn't being allowed back in.

However, before getting all worked up and frothing at the mouth, I'd like to know more about what was going on. Is she a member of any organizations related to terrorism? Is she associated with terrorists? Does anyone really know? There are probably terrorists hiding in the US, pretending to be nice people. The good ones won't look like terrorists...

Not that the government is always right. I would be willing to bet a small amount of money that the story is as presented in the article. However, having read articles about topics I have direct knowledge of, I wouldn't be willing to bet very much money on that...

EI

Posted by Earnest Iconoclast | September 18, 2007 4:09 PM

A perhaps even less laughing matter is that officials in the Department of Defense are claiming that State Department officials held up the visa of Sheik Abdul Sattar al-Rishawi for political reasons. (And at the very least, for paperwork reasons.) The Sheik was, famously, assassinated last week at a time when he was supposed to be in the State Department.

The State Department's actions on visas rarely please anyone, and it requires very little beyond typical bureaucratic foul-ups for denials to happen.

Posted by John Thacker | September 18, 2007 7:08 PM