₦airaland Forum

EzeUche: Eastern Nigeria not only wants Bakassi back, we want Southern Cameroons back!

This doesn't make sense. That's just expansionism. Southern Cameroons has more in common with much of the rest of Cameroon anyway and they couldn't get along with Nigerians when they were administered jointly with Nigeria by the British.

Somebody get Carl Lewis some tissue to dry his eyes. He's sounding real salty.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/business/2012/08/fareed-zakarias-take-gun-control-strikingly-similar-new-yorkers/55652/


^^^

A link to another article covering more of the plagiarism.

Time, CNN Suspend Zakaria After He Admits "Terrible Mistake"

The columnist was caught passing off large chunks of a New Yorker essay as his own.

By Josh Vorhees | Posted Friday, Aug. 10, 2012, at 4:28 PM ET

https://www.slate.com/content/dam/slatest/posts/2012/08/10/fareed_zakaria_s_new_yorker_plagerism_time_columnist_apologizes_for_terrible_mistake_/108305123.jpg.CROP.rectangle4-medium.jpg

Fareed Zakaria apologized Friday for the "close similarities" between his column and an essay published earlier this year in The New Yorker

Photo by Michal Cizek/AFP/Getty Images.




UPDATE: That didn't take long. Time magazine moved quickly to suspend columnist Fareed Zakaria for one month after he apologized Friday for lifting material from a New Yorker essay.

Here's the official statement from Time spokesman Ali Zelenko, via the AtlanticWire: "TIME accepts Fareed's apology, but what he did violates our own standards for our columnists, which is that their work must not only be factual but original; their views must not only be their own but their words as well. As a result, we are suspending Fareed's column for a month, pending further review."

CNN followed suit roughly an hour later, suspending the host of Fareed Zakaria GPS: "We have reviewed Fareed Zakaria’s Time column, for which he has apologized. He wrote a shorter blog post on CNN.com on the same issue which included similar unattributed excerpts. That blog post has been removed and CNN has suspended Fareed Zakaria while this matter is under review."

Friday, August 10: Time magazine's Fareed Zakaria apologized Friday for apparently borrowing heavily from a New Yorker article without attribution in his column on gun control this week, a journalistic misdeed he called a "serious lapse" and a "terrible mistake."

Here's his statement, via the the New York Times: "Media reporters have pointed out that paragraphs in my Time column this week bear close similarities to paragraphs in Jill Lepore's essay in the April 22nd issue of The New Yorker. They are right. I made a terrible mistake. It is a serious lapse and one that is entirely my fault. I apologize unreservedly to her, to my editors at Time, and to my readers."

Zakaria's journalistic missteps were first flagged earlier Friday by conservative media watchdog Newsbusters.

Here's one example of the similarities between Zakaria's column and Jill Lepore's New Yorker essay.

Zakaria in "The Case for Gun Control":

Adam Winkler, a professor of constitutional law at UCLA, documents the actual history in Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America. Guns were regulated in the U.S. from the earliest years of the Republic. Laws that banned the carrying of concealed weapons were passed in Kentucky and Louisiana in 1813. Other states soon followed: Indiana in 1820, Tennessee and Virginia in 1838, Alabama in 1839 and Ohio in 1859. Similar laws were passed in Texas, Florida and Oklahoma. As the governor of Texas (Texas!) explained in 1893, the "mission of the concealed deadly weapon is murder. To check it is the duty of every self-respecting, law-abiding man."

And Lepore, in "Battleground America":

As Adam Winkler, a constitutional-law scholar at U.C.L.A., demonstrates in a remarkably nuanced new book, “Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America,” firearms have been regulated in the United States from the start. Laws banning the carrying of concealed weapons were passed in Kentucky and Louisiana in 1813, and other states soon followed: Indiana (1820), Tennessee and Virginia (1838), Alabama (1839), and Ohio (1859). Similar laws were passed in Texas, Florida, and Oklahoma. As the governor of Texas explained in 1893, the “mission of the concealed deadly weapon is murder. To check it is the duty of every self-respecting, law-abiding man.

Alexander Abad-Santos has rounded up a few more of the passages in question over at the AtlanticWire. Prior to Zakaria's apology, a Time spokesperson offered this to the website: "Time takes any accusation of plagiarism by any of our journalists very seriously, and we will carefully examine the facts before saying anything else on the matter."

http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2012/08/10/fareed_zakaria_s_new_yorker_plagerism_time_columnist_apologizes_for_terrible_mistake_.html

Well the question that naturally arises is, why didn't his family and friends apply for land before he was FCT minister?

That they did under his tenure is why it looks fishy - like a case of crass nepotism. But he could have allocated the land to them simply because land was then available, they had applied (maybe because they knew he was FCT minister) and he had no valid reason not to allocate the land to them. It's not clear that he necessarily did show favoritism, but it just looks fishy from the outside, without all the details.

Deep Sight: If there was no "before" the big b.ang.

Then there was nothing.

That's the irrevocable conclusion for your faulty premises.

What do you mean by "then there was"?

The conclusion to draw from my premises is that it doesn't make sense to assume for no reason that there was existence "prior to" the start of existence.

You keep trying to separate the singularity from the big b.ang and keep trying to place the singularity "before" the big b.ang as if they were separate. When I pointed out how wrong that is, you said it was somebody else's (thehomer's) assertion (as it was), but then continued to argue along that line of thought anyway.

Deep Sight: Illogical because this would simply mean that there was no singularity, and as such, no expansion, and as such, no universe.

I was to address your posts to this effect in the Speed of Light thread, but i grew weary of repeating myself.

What are you talking about?

What exactly would mean that there was no singularity?

https://www.nairaland.com/alj%20harem

^^^

He was here on August 3rd. I think he'll be back at some point.

You're sounding a bit emotional now to the point that you're imagining Bantus and "Arabs" are necessary to explain the Imale rebellion. Instead of crying baby tears over that burnt woman's silliness and the uselessness of her actions, go read about what Candido da Fonseca Galvao stood for in Brazil and educate yourself on how he stood up boldly when racism was even more raw.

Martian: Ever since I read of black holes and how they suck up surrounding matter and crush them into a "singularities", I had this idea that the big bang could be the result of the expansion of a singulariy inside a black hole. Of course it's just an idea but a couple of theoretical physicists came to the same conclusion by the way of calculations.

http://www.insidescience.org/?q=content/every-black-hole-contains-new-universe/566

Torsion therefore provides a theoretical foundation for a scenario in which the interior of every black hole becomes a new universe. It also appears as a remedy to several major problems of current theory of gravity and cosmology. Physicists still need to combine the Einstein-Cartan-Sciama-Kibble theory fully with quantum mechanics into a quantum theory of gravity. While resolving some major questions, it raises new ones of its own. For example, what do we know about the parent universe and the black hole inside which our own universe resides? How many layers of parent universes would we have? How can we test that our universe lives in a black hole?

Yeah, I've thought of this myself, but I also came across a description of the idea in Kip Thorne's book, Black Holes and Time Warps. In Chapter 13, "Inside Black Holes" he talks about the idea of universes within black holes a few pages into the chapter. It's interesting, but of course, apart from there being no supporting experimental evidence, the theory is also not fully worked out.

With respect to time one could argue that, going in a direction of time considered "backward" in the new universe (assuming the universe that the black hole implosion creates has a time dimension of spacetime that does not run contrary to ours - that is, objects do not run "backward" through time on the macroscopic level, but appear to run "forward" like ours) to the big b.ang of that universe and then to the big b.ang of our universe, one would still not encounter a "time before time" because there would be nothing like a time before spacetime. Even if one wanted to construct an infinite regress of big b.angs started by black holes or one could prove that the number of universes would be finite, the first big b.ang when one goes backward through all spacetimes of all universes would still be the apparent origin of spacetime. So regardless of whether universes are born from black holes or not, one runs into the same situation of there eventually being nothing like "before the (first) big b.ang."

comnsense: To your first question, I say that because it is logical. We cannot have an infinite regress...at some point there must have been a first cause that could not have been created and is eternal OR that came from 'nothing'. Now that something is eternal is problematic because if it is some-thing, then it came into being, it be-came. The only thing that can be eternal is Nothing or Void. So something must have come from Nothing or the Void. This is the only option.

You said "at some point" as if there was nothing and then something sprung up at some point in time, but what I was getting at is that you're presupposing that there is some sort of absolute Newtonian timeline and that over this timeline, there is some point that comes before the big b.ang.

But (and this answers question 2) scientists have proposed that the Nothing or Void before the Big Bang was not strictly nothing. It was a vacuum state with zero point energy - the lowest possible energy of a mechanical physical system. This is pure potential for becoming under which matter is popping in and out of existence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy explains more about zero point energy.
Read up on Prof Lawrence Krausse and his views on this.

The point of my comment is that there is nothing like "before the big b.ang."

Ufeolorun: Funny how people who lack wide spread political coherence and clout keep shouting break up break up.
Oil induced nationalism is a disaster waiting to happen. We have seen in the past what these clanish purveyors are capable of- Warri alone would be how many countries?

Screw oil. Who is even talking about that?

What's "widespread political coherence and clout" (among who) to you anyway? Tony Anenih has clout. Abacha had clout. IBB has clout, etc.

seedord247: Igbo again? dem use asia swear for them?

The name is Osayamen, not Osayanem (the name is misspelled in the article) and he is not Igbo, but Bini.

I'm pretty sure no other groups bear the name Osayamen.

alanmwene: You call her act "silly" coz you are nigerian and you cant comprehend that!It takes a strong character and strong conviction to do that,everything nigerians lack!Asians budhists set themselves on fire on a daily basis in thibet to protest against racism and oppression.We may look the same but we arent the same:Africa is a very diverse place!As for the bahia revolt,I am pretty sure bantus masterminded it.There is no way a yoruba or an igbo would have had the courage to do that.Anyway,they found courage after being converted to islam.Zumbi stood by himself without the need of arabs teachings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zumbi

Dude, if you don't know who used the term "Imale" and which group of people spearheaded that revolt, go and get some education on Bahia and which group was prominent in Bahia. Islam has nothing to do with "finding courage" and that's a silly argument.

Not only was the woman's act silly, it was foolish, irrational and nonsensical. Comparing her act to that of Buddhists in Tibet is a bad joke. When you start to comprehend how silly her act was and how little of an impact it will have on anybody, maybe you can start seeing things properly.

jp philips: bunch of craps, was Cameroon willing to give up bakassi? was Cameroon not the one that went to ICC first? what deal? was it a Cameroonian court that decided the case? what could OBJ have done? flaunt ICJ orders, mount a Naval base perhaps occupy by force and attract international condemnations and possibly invasion?

does the gulf war come to mind? borrow a head if you don't have one. giving up bakassi to Cameroon was the best shot OBJ has, those f.u.ck.s should go get Cameroonian passports which i believe is of more value than dead Nigerian passport.

The Cameroonian government should not have gone to court in the first place, if not for the opportunism fueling their desire to see the British partition effectively implemented.

Why OBJ felt he had to submit to the opportunism of another country's government, I don't know.

The British ceded Bakassi from Old Calabar to German Cameroon without consulting anybody, but the territory was neglected by Cameroon.

Essentially the British partitioned Efik land in 1913 and the Cameroonians wanted to enforce that partitioning from independence till the present time (which they have now succeeded in doing) because the land has some economically promising features. Basically it's just opportunism.

[size=50pt]PHYSICS[/size]



forget stats

Dude, you're talking about Spain which everyone knows was ruled by the Moors for a period of time. That is quite a world away from all the ridiculous claiming the thread starter is doing.

Can somebody explain the joke in the opening post, if there is one, because I don't get it.

CAMEROONPRIDE: because he speaks the truth?

Cam pride, the Bakassians are not "Nigerian settlers on a Cameroonian land" but people from an ethnic group which stretches over two modern countries (Nigeria and Cameroon). Bakassi is (was) a territory of Old Calabar (Akwa Akpa) and Old Calabar is not and never has been Cameroonian. The British handed over that territory (Bakassi) to the Germans when they acquired sovereignty over Old Calabar and started delimiting borders with Germany without consulting anybody, but the actual indigenous people of Bakassi are the same as those of Calabar.

Okija Juju is known on this forum to have a personal dislike of the people of Calabar which he has expressed on multiple occasions. He is biased to start with.

@ naptu & Okija juju

I have also read the Omoigui article before, but my position on Bakassi remained unchanged even after reading it. The important thing that that article refuses to dwell on is the land rights of indigenous peoples. The issue of when Germany and Britain traded or decided this or that is irrelevant to the Bakassians because they were never direct signatories to any agreement on either the borders of Nigeria vs. those of Cameroon or on whether the exact borders drawn by the colonists would remain. If I remember correctly, every member of the African Union agreed to keep the colonial borders drawn by the colonizers, but at that time, were the Bakassians even consulted by Nigeria or Cameroon? I ask, because obviously if they were, this issue would have erupted much earlier than it did. The article by Omoigui is useful enough in that it popularizes some of the more obscure facts, but it totally misses the mark in that subjecting an indigenous people unwillingly to the sovereignty of a nation that they had no prior alliance to and were never part of - and even doing this in such a way that their land rights and livelihood could be infringed upon - is not somehow reasonable merely because people suspect that there is oil there.

Obiagu1: They shouldn't go into war with Cameroun if they are not fully ready.
Wish them luck.

They shouldn't go to war with Cameroon period. France will just sell Cameroon enough guns to suppress them if Cameroon doesn't already have enough.

They should harass the UN, AU, and every other significant international organization that they can relentlessly. The declaration at least shows that they're serious before appealing to others for support.

Up Bakassi!