Another interesting post about Pakistan.

Because it blames George Bush for the situation in Pakistan? Not exactly interesting. More interesting is that a piece about Pakistan could discuss problems there without mentioning Kashmir, Bangladesh, India, corruption and looting by Bhutto and her family and the country's dumb ass decision to test nukes. I also like how an article on Pakistan's "power puzzle" doesn't mention China.

If you're going to insist that every post be this thorough, you probably should also insist that there be some discussion of Britain's role during partition.

It is an interesting post, and doesn't excessively dwell on Bush (or the US in general). It is hard for Americans to understand the role of the military in Pakistan, because it is a role that really relates to the military as a separate, deeply entrenched and hereditary institution. There is nothing like it here. But during partition the country was really constructed around the military, which the British had made the most central and privileged local institution and which they counted on, post-independence, as a bulwark against Russia. Just as the American elites have multi-generational ties to Harvard or Yale, the Pakistani elites have multi-generational ties to a particular military unit. What unit your grandfather served in is more important to a Pakistani than what public school their family is associated with is to a City Barrister.

But because it's hard for Americans to understand the role of the military and what Bhutto represents (a family not tied to the military for its prestige - a family that breaks traditional molds in a very modern and non-Pakistani way), when Americans meddle in Pakistani politics, the law of unintended consequences applies. But as the only remaining superpower, they will meddle. The article did a decent job of highlighting how that played into the battle between the Bhuttos of the world and the traditional forces. And Musharif is just as much a part of the traditional landscape as the Islamicists.

Not what I got out of it, but thanks for playing.

You mean the game of posting cites to articles saying they are "interesting" in lieu of saying anything original (or anything at all)? You win that game, dear.

"Bhuttos of the World"? You mean the ones who prey upon the trust of their countrymen so as to steal upwards of 2 Billion and then show up again when things are so bad in the country that even a thief starts looking good and "the answer" to all the mayhem?

We would take a cite to an interesting article from you.

That would, at least, be something.

http://www.grindergirl.com/assets/im...e_merid113.jpg

At least I gave you something to read. I didn't claim originality, and I called the articles "interesting" so that I could link to them without necessarily agreeing with them in full.

I think that Bhutto was seen in the West primarily through the lens of her having gone to Harvard and Oxford, and that as such we had little sense of what she meant in Pakistan. George W. Bush is no more guilty of this than anyone else, and probably less so. OTOH, he seems to place great significance on personal relationships with foreign leaders like Musharref, and can be faulted for the extent to which our policy towards Pakistan has focused around personalities like those two.

Sounds quite a lot like Hillary, when you put it that way.

[Happy New Year, all]

Thank you.

In the spirit of the season, here's my return gift - the folks at Powerline fisked the [laughable] NYT closing op-ed of the year - regarding, of course, W the Tyrant.

It's rather lengthy, so i'm linking instead of posting

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive.../01/019422.php

I got about this far. I forgot where you came out on this - is waterboarding torture or not?

And I like the use of "as few as" and, earlier in the piece, "one would think." As in, "we might have tortured as few as 2 but as many as ____, because who the fuck knows, right?" and "one would think the NYT is putting up a big fat straw man argument for us to knock down." I love blogs.

notice how slave posted it as an opinion, instead of as factual support for something?

While opinions differ, I think it is obvious that you are an assclown.

Happy New Year from the pinheads at the TSA
 

• If you don't want to lose your spare lithium batteries for your camera, notebook or cell phone, you might want to pack carefully for your next flight.
  
  New rules from the Transportation and Security Administration that take effect on January 1 ban travelers from carrying loose lithium batteries in checked baggage. Passengers are allowed to pack two spare batteries in their carry-on bag, as long as they're in clear plastic baggies.
  
  Fortunately, you don't have to worry about the batteries that are already installed in the devices you're bringing. The TSA has said it's safe to check in items like a laptop or iPhone that already have the batteries in place.
  
  The agency said that loose lithium batteries not installed in devices pose a fire risk to passenger planes.

link

if you had been reading it when you jumped out a WTC window on 9/11/01 you wouldn't have gotten that far.

The NYT is the paper that published the bank supeona information, which it even had to admit was a fuck up, and directly did more damage to each of us, than any and all alleged reduction of our rights combined.

Yet the NYt can't understand why the CIA wouldn't want tapes floating around that would out its agents? I thought you guys get all angry about outing CIA agents, or do you think this time the NYT would decide not to publish?

dim fuck.

It's true, weed. Like Romney says, "the most basic civil right is the right to be kept alive." Patrick Henry, of course, can go blow Romney for America.

that's basically how Ty got the mod job here.

First, Mormons can't have sex outside wedlock, so Romney won't get blown.

Second, which erosion(s) of my rights did more harm than the bank outing.

third, it's a new year. if you want to be snide you should aim for more clever.

Sorry. I thought "dim fuck" was the signal that we weren't really talking about waterboarding as such anymore. Even worse, it takes a more nuanced reader than I to pick up on your clever use of the term. :(

He's a practicing Mormon, he might not have it right.

None of us -- not even you -- are in a position to know that.

"A man's got to know his limitations." - Clint Eastwood (in some role)

S_A_M

I don't know what that girl is doing with that thing but it looks like a sanding machine that emits fireworks and is being held dangerously close to private parts. I consider this an original expression concerning Pakistan. And thank you for it.

Since you're taking cites, I think this article (which only addresses one topic of course) was pretty ballsy and gives credit to more genuine efforts being waged towards a free Pakistan.

he called me a name first.

Excellent point. It is exactly America's lack of understanding of the country, in that regard and many others, that drives so many of us to value the Pakistanis' democratic rights over the need to keep their nukes under the control of a non-fanatical regime.

Granted, Bhutto was no fanatic, but I don't mind one bit that a person like Musharraf has the reins of a nuclear power. He's controllable and shrewd, as he's demonstrated by triangulating the differing demands and pressures placed on him by us, the citizens of his country and the elites who run the military. Predictable is as good as it gets in that part of the world.

What keeps Radical Islam knuckled under is our friend, no matter the means.

Ultimately, we must place bets. Musharif, like the Shah, is a bet on a traditional autocratic power. Will the force of radical islam or western capitalism and modernization be more compelling?

It may turn out that Bhutto's successors leading the democratic movement are preferrable to her in some ways; but it wouldn't be good to succomb to the temptation to paint her all one color - the Bhutto legacy is complicated, and has much good to it as well.

I was making a point about the value of opinions. No offense, assclam.

I don't have any problem with Bhutto at all. I didn't mean to imply that. In fact, since she was committed to democracy, which Musharraf clearly isn't, in a safe and stable country, I'd support her every day over a strongman like Musharraf.

However, under the circumstances in place in Pakistan, open, true Democracy would be exceedingly dangerous to the world. The country has nukes, and it also has hundreds of some of the most virulently anti-western madrassas in the world, as well as uncontrolled Al Queda, Taliban and radical Islamist elements. In a country where a sizable percentage of the population is educated only by memorizing the Koran, I don't see any true "Democratic" votes taking place (A democracy where a large portion of the voting public is brainwashed to vote a certain way is not a real democracy [This could be said of United States in some regards]). I see an ignorant mass distorting the vote and placing large numbers of Islamists in the government, a growing cancer which could topple a leader like Bhutto, sending a cache of nuclear weapons into the hands of Islamists.

Now, you might say, "Oh, well, as it has in the past when it doesn't like the elected govt, in such a scenario, the military would simply swoop in and overthrow any wild Islamist leadership." You'd probably be right, but I think that would plunge the nation into chaos beyond what we're seeing now. That's a scenrio where we'd wind up occupying the country with a UN force, and as I think Not Bob said a few weeks ago, that would be a disaster of epic proportions.

So leave the strongman in for now. In 10 or 20 years, when India and China's labor costs start increasing and the global markets look more toward Pakistan for cheap labor, its economy will rise and with some degree of wealth and even the hope for a middle class, the country will forget the idiocy of Radical Islam and move into the 20th Century. Then you'll see people like Bhutto really bring the nation forward.

do you really believe this?

Ron Paul supporters rally in World of Warcraft
 

Ron Paul supporters rally in World of Warcraft
 

Say what you will, that guy is getting scads of cash and turning out huge mobs of people giving speeches about how we ought to practice "civil disobedience" by not paying income tax. I can't say I haven't felt a little teary eyed and wanted to hug someone when he gets a standing ovation for arguing that we should eviscerate the IRS and immediately end over single farm subsidy.

I think Paul represents a really scary reality looming down the road - people are not going to pay taxes in the future. As the middle class keeps losing jobs and the parties keeping trying to soak the upper middle class for more of the tax revenue they can't get from the rich you're going to see a sort of gilded tax revolt. There are already upper middle class people in Pennsylvania refusing to pay astronomical school taxes. God knows how much worse it is in New Jersey, where the taxes are twice ours.

Ron Paul supporters rally in World of Warcraft
 

I think the guy has tapped into a real wellspring of strong support, but that some of those strong supporters are loons, and that there just aren't enough of them to have a political impact. Since libertarians have been taken for granted by the GOP for a long time, it's nice to see them wake up and smell the coffee, but there aren't enough of them for it to matter that much. I'm not unsympathetic to some of what Paul says.

I don't doubt that there are people who feel the way you do, but they are too few, poorly organized, or easily distracted by talk of terrorism and torture for it to lead to much of anything.

Ron Paul supporters rally in World of Warcraft
 

Some?

Besides - Paul isn't really a libertarian. He spouts a few mantras here and there, but at heart, he's really a populist xenophobe.

Ron Paul supporters rally in World of Warcraft
 

Agreed. I like him in theory. But I won't be voting in theory, whereas a lot of his supporters might be, along with others voting for him in dreamworlds, hallucinations or virtual realities...

Ron Paul supporters rally in World of Warcraft
 

Ahem - please note that these are "our children" for whom we are supposed to care about "conserving the environment" and "not leaving trillions of debt"

Fuck 'em.

PS - I am reminded of the conversation from Lebowski ("Big") to Lebowski ("Dude") - "I suggest you do as your parents did. Get a job, sir!"

class warfare, GOP-style
 

• Few of Huckabee’s critics have actually come out and said what many of them think. The language is coded, as it usually is with class and race in this country. The Wall Street Journal, the anti-tax jihadists at the Club For Growth, the National Review – these pillars of Old School Republicanism have signaled that Huckabee is Not One of Ours. But they’re careful to say it’s not about class, because, of course – it is!
  
  Class war is forbidden in the Republican playbook. But Huckabee, despite an inept last week of campaigning, has forced the Republican party to face the Wal-Mart shoppers that they have long taken advantage of. He’s here. He’s Gomer. And he’s not going away.
  
  ...
  
  It’s okay to have faux rubes, a la Bush senior and his pork rinds, or George W. and his Midland malapropisms. But when something that looks like the real thing comes along, the Republican royalists get apoplectic. They were appalled at the recent YouTube debate because it looked like a parody of one faction of their party – complete with Bible-waving wackos, trigger-happy gun nuts and Confederate-flag enthusiasts.

link

class warfare, GOP-style
 

More proof that the NYT op-ed page has become a sloppier rag than even the SF Guardian (yes, you read that right).

Let's ignore the fact that both NR and WSJ have been hounding Huckabee day after day after day over his stupid statements re foreign policy. And domestic policy.

No, no. It's because he's a rube.

Perhaps the NYT should be a bit more critical of its own prejudices regarding Romney's religion. Or the Dems sly attacks on Obama because of his race. Nah. Why be honest.

Ron Paul supporters rally in World of Warcraft
 

You're on the Big Lebowski's side?

Ron Paul supporters rally in World of Warcraft
 

Personally, I tend to find that if you poke them, most libertarians are just greedy motherfuckers whose sole political philosophy is "I got mine, I'm keeping it."

The real root of the problem is the damned communist Supreme Court back in the New Deal days. If they'd just upheld the right of children to work, we wouldn't have all this folderol about taxes to pay for so-called "education" today.

Ron Paul supporters rally in World of Warcraft
 

By kids, don't you mean unemployed stoners in their 20s and 30s living in Mom's basement?

Ron Paul supporters rally in World of Warcraft
 

I think this primary season is really a test of just how crazy the Republican's base really is. If we have a Huckabee-Romney-Paul finish, I'd say the answer is that they're all kinds of crazy. Total Batshit Looney-Tunes Wackadoo crazy.

Ron Paul supporters rally in World of Warcraft
 

Personally, your experience is obviously pretty fucking limited. I'm more than willing to allow certain minimal safety nets for people.

And by the way, what exactly is wrong with wanting to keep what you have? Do you think we live in a world where the aim is wealth parity? Do you think that's anything but absurd given what we know from thousands of years of exeperience with human nature? From the reality that we live in a Darwinian world?

What I do have I intend to keep, and that's not greedy in the least. It's fucking rational. My first allegiance is to the people closest to me. Do you offer the govt more money than you're taxed every year? Do you eschew aggressive tax strategies that preserve your family' wealth? Of course you don't. You'd be an idiot to do that.

You have a lot of stones to make a comment like that, and what's really amazing is you live in one of the biggest glass houses. If people didn't want to keep their money you'd be sweeping floors.