"A Little Bit Hollow"

Al-Jazeera English on the government's claims of success in the war against the Taliban:

My Nine Favorite Google Search Suggestions

Whenever I'm bored and have five minutes to kill, I always have great fun typing in regular words in the search box on Google and seeing what Google thinks I should be searching for. Hereunder are nine winners spread over two days of searching; readers with funny suggestions of their own should let us know in the comments section.

I love the first four for this one.

This one is so revealing. It appears guys are most concerned with girls as sexual beings while girls are most concerned with guys as companions. Is there any other interpretation for this one?

This one is so random.

The last two here made no sense until I actually googled them. Which is ironic in a way, if you think about it.

If ever there was an accurate summation of where our poor country is right now, this image would be it.

Notice how, other than the "cricinfo" suggestion, there is nothing below that implies Shoaib Akhtar ever played cricket.

These two next are brilliant. Please note the differences between "yo mama" and "your mother".

And finally, our very own Bilawal Bhutto (Zardari). Picture, thousand words etc etc.

Hipster Fashion Comes To Pakistan

Well, it's all over now. Via Chapati Mystery, check these guys out (click on the images to enlarge):


Apparently they're one of those socially conscious companies who donate half their profits to organizations devoted to education, human rights and renewable energy.

I predict AKS will buy at least three different t-shirts from these guys and wear them under his black blazer. I give him 17 seconds.

Going Rogue

I like reading and I like politics, but if there ever was a book I know that would not make my Amazon shopping list in a million years, it's Sarah Palin's Going Rogue. I'm not even linking to it because, really, I don't want to make it any easier for any of you to buy it.

Anyway, in lieu of a real post on the book and Sarah Palin in general, I thought I would round up some of the funniest and damning critiques of this unabashedly batshit crazy woman.

Her nemesis, Andrew Sullivan:

"Going Rogue" is such a postmodern book that treating it as some kind of factual narrative to check (as I began to), or comparing its version of events with her previous versions of the same events (as I have), and comparing all those versions with what we know is empirical reality (so many lies, so little time) is just a dizzying task. The lies and truths and half-truths and the facts and non-facts are all blurred together in a pious puree of such ghastly prose that, in the end, the book can only really be read as a some kind of chapter in a cheap nineteenth century edition of "Lives of the Saints." But as autobiography.

It is a religious book, full of myths and parables. And yet it is also crafted politically, with every single "detail" of the narrative honed carefully for specific constituencies. It is also some kind of manifesto - but not in the usual sense of a collection of policy proposals. It is a manifesto for the imagined life of an imagined Sarah Palin as a leader for all those who identify with the image and background she relentlessly claims to represent.

In this, the book is emblematic of late degenerate Republicanism, which is based not on actual policies, but on slogans now so exhausted by over-use they retain no real meaning: free enterprise is great, God loves us all, America is fabulous, foreigners are suspect, we need to be tough, we can't dither, we must always cut taxes, government is bad, liberals are socialists, the media hates you, etc etc.

Yglesias, being his usual matter-of-fact self:

In addition to displaying clear ignorance, on the campaign trail last year Sarah Palin demonstrated a habit of lying.

A review of the book on Foreign Policy's website:

Ultimately, Going Rogue goes rogue as a political memoir, demonstrating what can only be described as a persistent and guileless lack of knowledge of even basic foreign-policy or domestic political issues. It is what we might have expected from Palin. And it is much less than anyone should expect of a candidate for one of the most powerful offices on Earth.

Steve Walt, on the stupidity of the notion that being a "hockey mom" qualifies one for office:

I doubt if Ms. Palin would let someone perform surgery on one of her children (or even repair her car) simply because they had parenting experience or an entertaining life story. No, she'd want to make sure that the person in question actually knew what they were doing. Virtually all of us normally insist on genuine expertise when we hire anyone to do an important job -- whether it's carpentry or a cardiac bypass -- yet millions of people in this country seem to think that the most momentous decisions about our collective future can be entrusted to people who are sublimely comfortable in their own ignorance.

Obsidian Wings, dealing with Palin's complaints against Newsweek for its selection of a cover photograph of Palin in running shorts and looking pin-up-ish...that Palin herself agreed to for another magazine a few weeks back:

The bottom line is that Palin's a clown. She doesn't get a pass because her chosen clown persona is stereotypically feminine.

She caricatures herself. Day in and day out. Good for Newsweek for pointing and laughing.

The story is about why Sarah Palin is a problem for the GOP. The picture answers the question. She's a problem because she's a freak with no judgment who regularly makes a spectacle of herself. Obviously, she's a potential problem for America because she's an incompetent leader who supports terrible policies.

The New York Times review of the book, and where it directs its most pointed criticism:

The most sustained and vehement barbs in this book are directed not at Democrats or liberals or the news media, but at the McCain campaign. The very campaign that plucked her out of Alaska, anointed her the Republican vice-presidential nominee and made her one of the most talked about women on the planet — someone who could command a reported $5 million advance for writing this book.

In what reads like payback for disparaging comments by John McCain’s aides about her after the ticket’s loss to Barack Obama, Ms. Palin depicts the McCain campaign as overscripted, defeatist, disorganized and dunderheaded — slow to shift focus from the Iraq war to the cratering economy, insufficiently tough on Mr. Obama and contradictory in its media strategy. She also claims that the campaign billed her nearly $50,000 for “having been vetted.” The vetting, which was widely criticized in the press as being cursory and rushed, was, she insisted, “thorough”: they knew “exactly what they’re getting.”

Although Ms. Palin writes that she is “proud of the senator” for being bold enough to put her on the ticket, some of her loudest complaints in this volume are directed at the McCain campaign’s chief strategist, Steve Schmidt. Mr. Schmidt, ironically enough, was one of the aides to most forcefully make the case for putting her on the ticket in the first place, arguing to Mr. McCain, as Dan Balz and Haynes Johnson reported in their recent book, “The Battle for America 2008,” that she would shake up the race and help him get his “reform mojo back.” Over the weekend McCain aides fired back at Ms. Palin: Mr. Schmidt was quoted on Politico.com saying that charges about him were “all fiction.”

Back in 2008 Robert Draper reported in The New York Times Magazine that neither Mr. Schmidt nor Mr. McCain’s campaign manager, Rick Davis, apparently saw Ms. Palin’s “lack of familiarity with major national or international issues as a serious liability,” and that Mr. McCain, a former Navy pilot, saw the idea of upending the chessboard as a maverick move.

All in all Ms. Palin emerges from “Going Rogue” as an eager player in the blame game, ungrateful to the McCain campaign for putting her on the national stage. As for the McCain campaign, it often feels like a desperate and cynical operation, willing to make a risky Hail Mary pass to try to score a tactical win, instead of making a considered judgment as to who might be genuinely qualified to sit a heartbeat away from the Oval Office.

Nate Silver, arguing that she will definitely run in 2012:

Was quitting the Alaska governorship -- particularly in the sudden and disorganized way that Palin did it -- a decision characteristic of someone who carefully ponders all the facts and circumstances before jumping to a conclusion? Not hardly. Palin is impulsive, impatient, ambitious, thrill-seeking: not the type of politician to prudently wait for a better moment.

Slate, commenting on which American politician she most resembles:

According to an ABC News poll, only 38 percent of Americans consider her to be qualified to serve as president, and 60 percent consider her unqualified. (A CNN poll puts the qualified figure at 28 percent.) While many in the media made the mistake of underestimating her in the immediate aftermath of her selection as John McCain's running mate—she proved to have good political instincts and talent as a political performer—they are now overestimating her.

Indeed, the losing vice presidential candidate Palin most resembles is none other than Dan Quayle. Handsome, young, popular with the right-wing base, self-styled champion of family values, scourge of the "liberal media" and embodiment of Heartland America, Quayle likewise confounded observers in 1988 when Bush Sr. tapped him as his No. 2. (Only after Americans' prolonged exposure to George W. Bush did it become clear what Poppy Bush saw in Quayle.) Moreover, both Palin and Quayle, perhaps not coincidentally, enjoyed critical support from the journalist-operative Bill Kristol, whom Jacob Weisberg dubbed "Quayle's Brain" when he served as the vice president's chief of staff, and who helped push Palin onto the McCain team's radar screen. Quayle, too, we should recall, hit the best-seller list with his 1994 memoir, Standing Firm. And like Quayle, Palin seems destined—if she even seeks the presidency in 2012—to bow out early on, perhaps after the 2011 Iowa straw poll.

I'll say this: I have never been as uniquely terrified of someone attaining office as I am of this woman. I'd sooner have Zaid Hamid and Shireen Mazari's love-child run Pakistan than this woman run America.

For those interested, my liveblogging post of the Palin-Biden debate last October.

Microsoft Word Changing The English Language Watch

The red squiggly line Nazi is telling me that "factionalization" is not a word.

Other stupid MS Word corrections here, here, here, here, and here.

The Younis Khan Problem

One of the strange findings in Political Science is that a country being democratic or not has surprisingly little impact on whether it enjoys economic growth. To be sure, democracies tend to be richer than non-democracies, but research suggests that while the correlation between the two factors -- a state's system of government and its economic well-being -- is strong, a true causal significance has been difficult to pin down.

What, then, is the point of democracy, if it cannot be guaranteed to deliver a better life for a country's citizens? Advocates for democracy argue that the value of democracy lies not in the quality of leaders it delivers -- George W. Bush, take a bow -- but in the fact that bad leaders can be easily replaced. George W. Bush may have been a terrible President, but he could not remain in power forever. Robert Mugabe, by contrast, is still going strong.

We frequently hear from supporters of authoritarian governments the argument that "more gets done" when you don't have to worry about parliamentary niceties. Since one man or woman gets to decide everything, there's less of a chance that they get bogged down by people who may not have the country's best interest at heart. This view rests on a very particular idea of dictators, however. It rests on the supposition that a dictator will be benevolent, and one who has a country's national interest squarely in mind. Dictatorship only works when you have an excellent leader. What happens if you get an evil dictator? You're stuck. You need a plane crash or an assassination or a revolution to get rid of him.

Younis Khan's problem was that he thought he was a benevolent dictator, but his teammates thought that he was an evil dictator.
____________________________________________________________________________________

By all accounts, Pakistan cricket has had two excellent captains in its history: A.H. Kardar and Imran Khan. It would strike few as coincidental that both were strongmen to the fullest; both enjoyed powers almost unheard of in other countries, including Pakistan. They picked their teams, they lorded over their contemporary boards, they took responsibility for everything. They were, in a word, dictators. Good dictators, to be fair, but dictators nonetheless.

Imran's tenure, in particular, has embedded the belief in every follower of Pakistan cricket that for a captain to be successful, he must enjoy unbridled power. He must not be held back by meddling boards or corrupt selection committees or power-hungry players. It must be his way, or the highway.

Younis Khan, in particular, is a man who has taken those lessons to heart. He has now given up the captaincy of his country on three different occasions: once because he had to wait outside Shahrayar Khan's office for five minutes, once because a publicity-hungry and mentally challenged parliamentarian accused the team of throwing a game, and finally because he felt he had inadequate support from the team at large. Whatever the merits of those individual decisions -- and let us be honest, only the third could be construed as broadly rational -- the common theme running through them was that Younis always opted for the path of least resistance, and most security. You may lay this at the door of his pride, or his Pathan-ness, or whatever, but the fact remains that he never felt comfortable getting scrappy, getting down and dirty in the muddied waters that constitute Pakistan cricket, and fighting back. His idea of fighting back was walking away, because in his view, someone as pure and unsullied as him shouldn't have to fight back. He wanted the powers of a dictator (like Imran Khan), but the trouble-free tenure of a democrat (like, say, Mark Taylor).

The logical fallacy underpinning this is obvious. Specifically, there are two issues of concern. First, Imran Khan was Pakistan's best player for over a decade, and among the three best cricketers of his era. His performances rendered him above reproach. Younis Khan, on the other hand, has struggled lately, particularly in ODI cricket (which is all Pakistan seems to have played in the last two years). If you're going to be a dictator, you must be incapable of being attacked for the quality of your play.

The second problem is that to be a dictator, you must fight constantly for your dictatorship. In a democracy, a leader does not have to worry about being supplanted from power, outside elections. Barack Obama may have a lot on his plate, but he can rest assured that he will get his four years, irrespective of his performance. By contrast, a dictator must constantly be aware of threats to his rule, and snuff them out if he wants to remain in power. Occasionally, this instinct will have unhappy (and stupid) consequences, as when dictators get paranoid, and start seeing threats from every which way (Stalin famously purged his military of senior officers, leaving the Red Army in disarray just two years before Hitler invaded the Soviet Union). But in general, for you to be a successful dictator -- successful in the sense that you stay in power -- you must dig your heels in, and be ruthless.

Imran Khan knew this. He did not try to mend fences with irreconcilable elements. He simply got rid of them. He dropped Majid Khan, his own cousin, and the two, to this day, do not speak. He kept the Miandads and Sarfarazs on an extremely short leash. He was ruthless, as a dictator must be. He wanted to be feared. Younis, by contrast, wanted to be loved. And as any dictator will tell you, you cannot have it both ways.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

In the latest drama, there are three parties at fault. I have already discussed what I consider to be Younis' failings: his desire to patch things up with members of the team who were unhappy under him. He should have either resigned when these concerns first came up -- and by all accounts, they began almost as soon as he assumed the captaincy -- or acted like a mob boss in retaliation: calmly and clinically, and finished them off. But of all the parties involved, he was the most sympathetic. His mistakes involved trusting others too much, and believing they were people who could be reasoned with. Evidently, this was not the case.

The other two parties involved are easier to hate. The first is the shambolic organization that is the PCB. Do you think the board in Australia would have put up with this? South Africa? Hell, even the West Indies board would have handled this fiasco better. If Younis Khan was their man -- and extending his tenure to the 2011 World Cup suggests that he was -- then they should have stuck with him. They should have told the coup makers that if they faced a simple choice: shut up, or ship out. Back the captain, or pack your bags.

The funny things is that our board has shown inclination to back a "to hell with these guys" attitude in the past, but for the wrong reasons. For example, they were more than prepared to support the BCCI in ending the careers of the ICL players. But when it came to backing their own captain, they were found woefully short, and succumbed to player power. They allowed the entire mess to fester, and for that deserve some of the blame for this blowing up in their face.

But even their culpability pales in comparison to the so-called "senior players" cabal. By now, we all know their names: Malik, Yousuf, Misbah, Butt, and Akmal. It is unclear, at least from my perspective, to what extent Afridi participated in this coup. Was he simply the front-man, a la Waqar in 1994, or was he the instigator? In many ways, it simply does not matter. What does matter is this: a bunch of nobodies took on the rightful captain of the country, a man who tried to do right by them, a man who kept lines of communication open and backed them. And not only did they take him on, they won.

What I find most interesting about the cabal is how none of them should really have a secure place in any of our three teams, aside from Yousuf in tests. Malik? Tried, tested and failed, and a selfish SOB to boot. Yousuf? A terrible fielder, a bad runner, a slow batsman. Misbah? His career should have ended a year ago. Butt? His career should have ended two years ago. Kamran? He's drops catches like Chris Rock dropping f-bombs in his stand up, and has done so for four years now (all the while Sarfraz Ahmed languishes on the sidelines). This isn't exactly Waqar-Inzi-Malik taking on Wasim in 1994. It's more akin to Mark Ealham, Ian Salisbury and Robert Croft taking on Nasser Hussain.

My question to these players would be: who the fuck do you think you are? You're all lucky to still be playing for Pakistan. Surely you should be thankful for the opportunity, instead of politicking and ensuring that ouster of a man who has done nothing but try his best? Where do you find the gall? The doctor who surgically removed their ability to feel shame must be a rich man or woman indeed.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

One understated effect of this tragedy -- and I use that phrase in the Greek literature sense of the term, in that there are no winners in this game -- is that we lose not only Younis the captain, but Younis the batsmen. He has had his problems in ODIs, to be sure, but no one really cares about ODI cricket anyway (a dying format if ever there was one). In test cricket, not only is Younis one of only two quality players we have (Yousuf being the other), he remains, in my opinion, Pakistan's best number three ever -- a position we have always struggled to fill. With him in the team, I always felt assured. Without him, our batting looks exceptionally weak, especially on the seaming pitches of New Zealand the bouncy tracks of Australia. He is one of the very few players we have who have been successful in both countries, with an average of 43 in Australia and 70 in New Zealand.

Even if he comes back into the team for the Australian tour, hardly a given at this stage, would anybody place money on his doing well there? Younis is an incredibly emotional player, and the tamasha that routinely accompanies Pakistan cricket has taken its toll on him. This much was clear in both the Champions Trophy and the ODIs against New Zealand, when the free-wheeling, smiling and exuberant Younis we are used to was nowhere to be seen. He was clearly a different person, and we now know why. For better or worse, he is not one of those cricketers who can block all distractions out and play at his best (unlike, say, Wasim Akram who arguably became a better bowler after the revolt against him, and who took 25 wickets in three tests at an average of 17 in his first tour after the revolt). At the risk of sounding melodramatic, this episode may have ended, for all intents and purposes, Younis Khan the batsman.

It has certainly ended Younis Khan the captain; there is not a snowball's chance in hell that he ever becomes captain again, with or without the cabal still in the team. To that end, let me say the following: goodbye, Younis. You were too good for us.

And to Yousuf? Watch your back, maulana jee. They're coming after you next.

Lawless Liberia

My undergraduate dissertation examined the negative impact an over expansive and ever expanding international copyright legal regime could have on Countries of the South. I was quite the idealist lefty back then and viewed international law a neo-imperialist tool in a post colonial world. But even then I never imagined that copyright laws could be used in so ridiculous and destructive a manner as has recently been the case Liberia. Foreign Policy magazine reports:

Six years after a civil war that killed 250,000 and displaced hundreds of thousands more, justice is at the top of Liberia's list of needs. But in this small West African country of 3.5 million, the problem isn't a lack of courtrooms or trained lawyers. Liberia is wanting for the actual laws themselves. The country's legal code doesn't exist in print except for a few mismatched volumes here and there, sequestered in incomplete sets in libraries in the capital, Monrovia. And right now, as far as legal advocates can tell, even Liberia's national parliament doesn't have a full copy of the law.

Why not? Because the few volumes that do exist have been quietly copyrighted -- and subsequently held ransom -- by the man in charge of Liberia's legal reform. Across the country, lawyers, courtrooms, and even the government are operating blindly; it's impossible to be certain if they are following a legal code they don't have.

The man who has literally taken the law into his own hands is Philip Banks, appointed by President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf as chair of the country's law reform commission.

Defending himself in an interview with FP on Oct.27, Banks says he numbered, bound, and indexed the newer laws -- intellectual work that he claims as his original property. Without his efforts, he claims, Liberia's laws would exist only in loose-leaf pamphlets and would likely be lost.

And there I was, thinking that our legal system had problems.

P.S.

I wrote a couple of posts on Liberia a few years ago which can be read here.

Liveblogging Pakistan Vs New Zealand T20

1:26 p.m. These random awards at the end are hilarious.

1:11 p.m. And he's gone. Styris holes out to Malik -- no doubt about this one -- and Pakistan win this T20 by 7 runs. No summing up from me, because I'm going to the bathroom for one of those 45 second pisses. Bye.

1:11 p.m. Another single. 8 from 1, and barring a no ball, we're home free.

1:10 p.m. One down, two to go. Just a single to long off. Nine from two.

1:09 p.m. Come on Gullee. Don't let this disturb you. Yorker, yorker, yorker.

1:08 p.m. This is nonsensical. They're calling him back. This is absolutely ridiculous. Cameras will never get you a good angle on those plays. I call bullshit. So it's 10 from three, with Styris back on strike.

1:07 p.m. What's going on here? The umpires have apparently referred that catch, since it was taken very close to the ground. No doubt in my mind that the catch was clean, but I suppose Judas' dastardly reputation precedes him.

1:06 p.m. The closeness of this game is really not helping my bladder.

1:05 p.m. Gone! Franlin smacks it down the ground, and Judas takes an excellent catch. That was dying on him, but he took it nicely running forward around his ankles. Nice going, Judas. Not as nice as your blatant betrayal and scheming, but nice nonetheless. 11 from 3.

1:04 p.m. A yorker squeezed for one. 11 from 4. Franklin on strike. Does he go for it, or does he get Styris back on strike?

1:04 p.m. Wow! A length ball, and Styris smacks it for six. Uh, Gullee, you might think about bowling a yorker here. 12 from 5.

1:03 p.m. Gullee to bowl the last over. 18 needed.

1:03 p.m. Do you think the management of this coffee shop will mind if I just piss under the table?

1:02 p.m. And two to finish the over, leaving 18 off the last. From NZ's perspective, they should be happy that at least Styris is on strike.

1:02 p.m. A single to square leg. 20 from 7.

1:01 p.m. What bowling from Ajmal. Styris gives himself room, Ajmal follows him, and with the turn, ends up beating his cut shot outside leg stump.

1:01 p.m. He starts with a single to long off. Styris back on strike. Key three balls here. 21 from 9.

1:00 p.m. Franklin in.

12:59 p.m I really, really need to piss.

12:58 p.m. Gone! Ajmal gets McCullum, who danced down, got beaten in flight, hit it straight up, and Judas takes it (he would've dropped it if Younis was still captain). It also happens to be a dot ball, which is almost as valuable as the wicket itself. 22 from 10.

12:58 p.m. Ooh, gets away with that one. Short, but hit just for one to deep square.

12:56 p.m. Really smart cricket from Styris, getting it over Akmal's head by scooping a full one from Aamer. Good over for NZ, 15 from it. 23 from 12, and now they're back in front. This has been one of those pendulum games. Ajmal to bowl his last over.

12:56 p.m. Another single. One ball to come. Come on Aamer. No boundaries here. 27 from 13 by the way.

12:55 p.m. A yorker squeezed to point for one. Good comeback from Aamer here after that disastrous length ball first up.

12:54 p.m. Great fielding from Afridi, saving a certain boundary. Still a single though, as Styris looks to be middling it nicely now. McCullum back on strike. 29 from 15.

12:53 p.m. Fuck. Styris smacks Aamer, replacing Gullee, for six over midwicket. Huge hit. And follows with two to cover, slicing it off the edge. 30 from 16. Tight, very tight.

12:52 p.m. And two to deep midwicket to finish. 38 from 18 required. Our noses are back in front here, thanks to a bloody fantastic over from Ajmal. I don't recall a spinner bowling this well in the death since Saqlain in his heyday.

12:51 p.m. Single to short fine. Just five from five so far. End it nicely Ajmal.

12:51 p.m. Ajmal bowls a doosra, and Styris misses it. Dot.

12:50 p.m. A single to short third. Styris back on strike.

12:50 p.m. A single to deep cover. McCullum back on strike. Need him here. Come on Ajmal.

12:49 p.m. Styris chips Ajmal over midwicket for two.

12:49 p.m. Ajmal will bowl out from this end. I need to piss very badly (goddamn large teas I've been ordering) but sadly for my bladder, I must wait now.

12:48 p.m. And a single to finish, making it six off the over. Solid stuff, as usual, from Gullee. 45 from 24 needed.

12:47 p.m. A dot, even though it should've been a single. Styris is a worse runner than Yousuf.

12:46 p.m. Wide yorker, and Styris squeezes it to deep cover for two. 46 from 28. Close this over strong, Gullee. Come on.

12:45 p.m. I should just Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V "Gullee bowls a yorker, and it's a single".

12:45 p.m. And another. Gullee will pretty much bowl yorkers from here on out.

12:44 p.m. Single to start.

12:44 p.m. Gullee replacing Judas. Jeremy Coney sounds pumped.

12:42 p.m. Oh dear. Styris hits it straight to Crazy Imran at deep square, but he had run in too far, has to go back, and drops it, and moreover, it goes for four. Ugh. If we lose, it'll be because of our fielding. Afridi looks very pissed. Anyway, at the end of the over, they need 51 off 30. They're suddenly favorites now.

12:40 p.m. Afridi continuing. Two singles to start.

12:39 p.m. And Styris calmly lifts Judas for four down the ground. I really have no idea why Judas is bowling, given (a) we have five top quality bowlers to bowl their quotas, (b) he leaked a lot of runs in his last over, and (c) he's the embodiment of Evil. Eight off the over, and the equation is now 60 from 36 requires.

12:38 p.m. Our fielding has become really shoddy in the last twenty minutes here. Four from the first three balls here.

12:36 p.m. Ouch. Another tap and run, and Kamran throws it to Afridi like he's standing 400 m away, when it's more like 15 yards. A boundary off the last ball, and all of a sudden, NZ get a good over out of nothing. 86-3. They need 68 from 42. Judas to continue.

12:34 p.m. Afridi continuing, and hit for two down the ground to start. Dot follows, as he beats Styris all ends up with one that turns.

12:33 p.m. NZ need 77 from 48.

12:33 p.m. Judas leaks 11 off his over. 77-3 after 12. This one is going down to the wire people.

12:31 p.m. And Judas bowls a wide down the leg side for four. Maybe his hands are cut from holding all those knives he used to stab Younis in the back? As Rameez says, we're getting a little ragged here.

12:30 p.m. Judas replaces Ajmal.

12:30 p.m. Styris in. This is the partnership, boys. I'd like to get McCullum soon, thanks.

12:28 p.m. Gone! That was always on the cards. Afridi looked like getting an LBW off every ball in this over. Taylor tried to sweep him, but just missed it. Hit the back leg in front of middle and off, and that was easy to give. 66-3 in the 11th.

12:27 p.m. Another one through the legs. Goddamn we're a terrible fielding side.

12:26 p.m. Comical fielding here. No need to throw there, but still, the backing-up was terrible. Two to start.

12:26 p.m. 92 from 60 with eight wickets in hand. Anyone's game here. Afridi into the attack, replacing Gullee.

12:25 p.m. Yikes. Taylor smacks Ajmal for six. That was all bottom hand. Ten off the over, 62-2 after ten.

12:24 p.m. These guys really have no idea how to play Ajmal. Two leg byes to start his over. A single down the ground off the third ball. Pressure building.

12:21 p.m. Afridi looking very involved and energetic in the field, pointing and gesticulating ever which way. He might want to be careful, the last guy who was that involved in the field had multiple knives slipped between his shoulder blades. Anyway, a fairly quiet over with six coming off it. 52-2 after nine.

12:19 p.m. Gullee bowling well here, nice pace and just back of a length.

12:19 p.m. Ross Taylor in.

12:17 p.m. Gone! Guptil plays Gullee on, chopping it down to his off stump. Timely wicket that. 46-2 in the ninth.

12:16 p.m. And a single to finish. Five off, 46-1 after eight. One of these two needs to go here. They can't score 9/10 an over against Ajmal, Afridi and Gullee.

12:16 p.m. And another. Suddenly this is an excellent over.

12:15 p.m. Three dots to follow.

12:14 p.m. Ajmal replaces Tanvir, and is late cut for four first up by Guptill. Nice stroke.

12:12 p.m. Great cricket from McCullum. He plays the Lara swivel on one leg, and helps it over long leg for six. Crazy Imran got a hand to it, jumping up at the boundary, but that was never going to be out. Anyway, 41-1 after seven. Again, NZ doing okay here, but nothing spectacular.

12:11 p.m. Good start from Gullee here, just a single off the first three balls.

12:10 p.m. I love how white people are so fascinated by our complete lack of systematic talent hunting. Jeremy Coney sounds positively enchanted with the way we do things.

12:09 p.m. Gullee replacing Aamer.

12:08 p.m. And two singles to finish, giving them three in the over. Good going. 34-1 after six. Rate required has jumped to more than eight and a half. That's what happens in this format, just one good/bad over, and the equation changes dramatically.

12:07 p.m. A single to cover. Just one off four in this over so far. End it nicely here, Sohail. Do so, and I'll reward you with some naswaar.

12:06 p.m. And another. No boundaries now, Sohail. Come on.

12:06 p.m. Swing and a miss from Guptill. Tanvir doing well here. Two dots to start.

12:04 p.m. Aamer keeps McCullum quiet, and it's 31-1 after five. NZ aren't playing badly by any stretch, but the rate required is a little over eight now.

12:01 p.m. Guptill absolutely drills Aamer right back to him for four. As Waqar says, Aamer is very lucky he wasn't in the way in his follow through. That would have ended his career, if not his life.

12:01 p.m. Aamer continuing here.

12:00 p.m. Aarggh. I hate it when they score a boundary off the last ball of the over, ruining a good one. Guptill slashes Sohail with the angle over backward point for four. 25-1 after four.

11:59 a.m. Nice bowling here from Sohail, just getting some away swing and keeping it tight. He's bowled a few wides, but for the most part, he's been good.

11:58 a.m. Guptill in.

11:57 a.m. Gone! What a catch by Orwell! Tanvir gets Watling (who?) to edge it, and the wide gap between slip and the keeper means Orwell has to go for it. Snatches it one-handed. 20-1 in the fourth.

11:55 a.m. McCullum swinging like a rusty gate, as David Lloyd would say.

11:54 a.m. Nice stroke through backward point for four. 18-0 after three, a solid enough start.

11:52 a.m. NZ just dropping and running here. We have quick legs in the field, but our throwing is utter shite.

11:51 a.m. Nice bowling from Aamer, with a slower one. Beat McCullum all ends up. Question for Pakistan fans: who excites you more, Aamer or Junior? I say Aamer, because bowlers will always win you more games than batsmen. But it's close, let me tell you.

11:48 a.m. Nice shape from Tanvir here, beating McCullum outside off. I really don't like the whole "two left arm quicks opening the attack", but I guess I don't mind it too much in T20s. Generally speaking, their biggest strength is their variety, but batsmen get used to the angle if they get it from both ends. Indians (with Zaheer and Nehra) know what I'm talking about. Actually, I remember in the 90s, Sri Lanka had three left arm quicks in their bowling -- Vaas, Nuwan Zoysa and some other dude I don't remember. Can you guys help with my trivia? Anyway, it's 10-0 after two.

11:46 a.m. Sohail Tanvir, quiet possibly the maila-est looking cricketer I've seen in a decade or more (Basit Ali was the other) opening the attack from the other end. A dot and a wide to start.

11:45 a.m. Quiet end to the over, six off it. 6-0 after one over then. And yes, the connection seems to be much better here.

11:44 a.m. Aamer cranking it up here. Up to 145 km/h.

11:42 a.m. Oooooh. Quick, and McCullum tries to smash it, gets an edge, and it flies to third man for four. NZ are away.

11:41 a.m. And straight away some pace and bounce from Aamer.

11:41 a.m. Sorry about that guys. I just left the other coffee shop because it simply wasn't happening. I think it's better at this coffee shop. Anyway, NZ need 154 to win. Goodish score, but can be easily gotten.

11:26 a.m. Bang! Umar bisects the straight boundary fielders, and gets four. A single to follow, so six off the first three.

11:24 a.m. Ten off the over, 143-5 with one over to go. I'm going to a new coffee shop for the second innings. Maybe my luck will change re: the stopping and starting.

11:23 a.m. After having his hitting talent bitched out by Rameez, Fawad smacks a six. Idiot Rameez.

11:20 a.m. By the way, we're 133-5 after 18. I'd love to tell you what's going on for real, but I can't, other than the fact that Mike Haysman sounds very excited.

11:19 a.m. Question for the techie folk out there: if the sound is coming completely unfettered, but the picture is jumping and skipping, does that mean there's something wrong with (a) my feed, (b) my internet connection, or (c) Windows Media Player? Keep in mind it was completely fine for the first hour and a bit, and I haven't moved to a different internet connection.

11:16 a.m. Sigh. 127-5 in 17.

11:14 a.m. All I can tell you is that it's 123-5 after 16.

11:13 a.m. Yaar the sound is completely fine, but the picture is stopping and starting. This is very pissing off.

11:12 a.m. My feed is acting funny again. Hold on a sec.

11:10 a.m. Well I guess Fawad will get to bat after all.

11:09 a.m. Make that 114-5 after 15.1. Razzaq goes first ball. Huge nick to the keeper, and suddenly we're looking a little wobbly.

11:08 a.m. 114-4 after 15.

11:07 a.m. Popeye in. Poor Fawad, he basically plays in our T20 team as a specialist fielder. Dude never actually gets to bat.

11:06 a.m. Except his getting out! Yaaaayy. Judas holes out, trying to smack it god knows where. Good running catch too.

11:05 a.m. Um, Tony? Do you really want to be appearing so horny on international television? Jeez, you show one hot chick and these commentators go insane. Anyway, Judas gets a four. I'm really not going to celebrate anything he does.

11:03 a.m. Seven off the over with little risk. 109-3 after 14. Bathroom break for me, let's hope nothing happens.

11:00 a.m. Bond back into the attack. Judas with a nice drive down the ground for one, before Junior pulls him for two to midwicket. Follows with a two to wide long off. I feel safe in saying that Junior is the best batting talent to come out of anywhere in the last five years.

10:59 a.m. Great touch from Junior, as he laps McCullum very fine for four. Six and a wicket off the over, 102-3 after 13.

10:58 a.m. Judas off the mark with a single to square leg.

10:57 a.m. Judas in. And now he'll face up, as Junior gets a single to long on.

10:56 a.m. Annnnnd he's gone. Afridi smacks McCullum straight down the throat of Bond at midwicket. Again, in this format, you have to say he did his job.

10:55 a.m. Even bigger from Junior. Wow. One knee, over long on, and the sound coming from these bats is just awesome. Huge over, 17 off it. 96-2 after 12.

10:53 a.m. The biggest difference between the Afridi of this year and the Afridi of the rest of his career is that he now feels satisfied getting a single after smashing a boundary. Whereas earlier he always tried to rub it in and hole out. I don't know what it says about him that it took twelve years of international cricket to mature, but better late than never I suppose.

10:52 a.m. Bang! Afridi deposits Styris for six down the ground. Suddenly this is an excellent over. Is this the push-on?

10:51 a.m. A wide and a two to start Styris' second over.

10:50 a.m. I don't know how I feel about this, but "Billie Jean" is playing at the coffee shop where I'm watching this. By the way, did you guys watch the South Park episode on celebrities dying this year?

10:49 a.m. Just the six off the over. 79-2 after 11. Ugh.

10:48 a.m. Another single. What the hell is going on here?

10:48 a.m. Single to deep cover. Chal na yaar. We need to motor on, kids.

10:47 a.m. Nathan McCullum into the attack. I have no idea what he's appealing for, but it's a leg bye to start. Boom Boom on strike.

10:45 a.m. Styris is bowling like Gavin Larsen here. Seriously, I bowl quicker than this, and I'm a bloody keeper. Can't argue with the results though, since there's just two off the over. 73-2 after ten. Alright boys, let's get a move on.

10:45 a.m. Despite bowling three very hittable balls to Afridi, Styris only goes for one off three so far. Junior back on strike.

10:43 a.m. Styris into the attack. This dude always looks like he just woke up after a night of heavy drinking and head-banging at a metal rock concert.

10:41 a.m. Hahahahah. Afridi tries to smack it to Saudi Arabia, but misses a full one. Damage averted there. Anyway, single to finish and it's 71-2 after nine.

10:40 a.m. Uh oh. No ball, and Boom Boom will get the free hit from Franklin.

10:39 a.m. And great running for two. Rameez is starting to get a hard on, from the sound of his voice.

10:38 a.m. Junior flays Franklin behind point for four. He sliced that, and was close to getting caught by Guptill. Two to third man to follow. Very heady player, Junior. You can just tell he's destined for great things. I mean, he's so good I'm not even afraid of jinxing him -- there's no doubt with guys like him.

10:37 a.m. Junior looking solid here, just trying to tick it over. Seven off the over, and it's 60-2 after eight.

10:35 a.m. Yeah, Boom Boom. Yeah. Not great bowling, but it's midwicket for four.

10:33 a.m. Hahahahahhaha. I have absolutely no idea how to describe that shot by Afridi; my English isn't good enough. Let's just say it was a dot ball and leave it at that.

10:32 a.m. Boom Boom in. A hoik over cover brings him two to start, and we move on to 53-2 after seven.

10:31 a.m. Uh, evidently not much. Orwell tries to Misbah it down to fine leg, but gets tangled up, gets hit on the pad, and that's plumb.

10:30 a.m. Dropped! Butler drops Orwell off his own bowling. Difficult chance, low and to his right. How much will that hurt NZ?

10:29 a.m. What the hell is all the "single" bullshit? That's three in a row.

10:29 a.m. And a single brings up the fifty, in the seventh over.

10:28 a.m. Junior gets a single to third man, just feeding the strike to Orwell (Big Brother, yaar, understand the references).

10:25 a.m. Kamran Razzaqs Franklin for six over mid-on. Cleared his front leg, and just smashed it through the line. 48-1 after six. Pakistan looking good here.

10:24 a.m. Tight start from Franklin, keeping Umar quiet for the first three balls. A misfield at point, however, gives Junior a single.

10:24 a.m. James Franklin into the attack.

10:22 a.m. Junior Akmal works Butler for one through midwicket to get off the mark. And Tony Grieg just called Sunny "healthy". That's South Asian code for "fat".

10:21 a.m. Ah, nice and straight first up from Akmal. No run, but it looked good for sure.

10:21 a.m. Junior Akmal joins big bro.

10:20 a.m. Gone! Crazy Imran is bowled from a leg-stump yorker by Butler. I'm sure that warmed the heart of Waqar in the commentary box. Well, in this format, you have to say Crazy Imran did his job. 40-1 in the fifth over.

10:19 a.m. Crack. The sound from Crazy Imran's bat was awesome there, as he smashes Butler for six over deep square. NZ keep bowling short here; I wonder if it's a plan. If it is, it's a really stupid plan on this pitch, but there you go.

10:18 a.m. What a terrible call. Crazy Imran backed up, Butler bowled it short, it goes over his head, and the ump calls a wide.

10:17 a.m. Ian Butler into the attack. Crazy Imran to face up.

10:15 a.m. I feel very strange supporting this team, I have to be honest. They fucked Younis Khan like a two-dollar hooker. They're my team, but the level of betrayal here is just too much. Anyway, another short one goes to fine leg for four from Akmal's top-edged hook. He picks up the net off his pads over midwicket, and that's a big over. 33-0 after four.

10:13 a.m. Short, leg side, four. Akmal swivels Southee down to fine leg. Terrible bowling. "Runs are just floooowing now," says Waqar.

10:12 a.m. And we're back! Apparently 20-0 after three overs. Hopefully it'll be smooth sailing from here.

10:12 a.m. What I can tell you is that if you want to sell your jewelery, you should definitely use borro.com.

10:11 a.m. Sorry kids, I have no idea what's going on. I paid my fees and everything. Stand by...

10:07 a.m. My feed is acting funny. Apologies.

10:06 a.m. Sunny and Zaheer in the house!

10:05 a.m. Swing and a miss from Akmal. Baseball shot that.

10:04 a.m. I think someone very recently introduced Waqar to the phrase "fair enough".

10:04 a.m. Sorry, it's 8-0. I thought there was a single to end the over, but it was a dot. Southee starts solidly enough, as does Akmal.

10:01 a.m. Oh, so that's what he was trying to do. Crazy Imran slaps Bond through the covers for four. He then lifts Bond over mid-on for four, though it hardly looked safe. Then again, "looking safe" isn't exactly his MO. A single to end, and 9-0 after the first over.

10:01 a.m. Bond gets some nice carry first up. For the second ball, Crazy Imran tries an ungainly smack through the offside. Nothing happens.

10:00 a.m. We won the toss and are batting first. Akmal and Crazy Imran to open. Bond to begin for NZ.

Hello and welcome to Rs.5's coverage of the second T20 between Pakistan and NZ. We won the first, but in order to do so, apparently needed to lose Younis Khan. As always, all times are local (i.e. Chicago).

Programming Note

I will be live-blogging our T20 game against NZ tomorrow. Your comments/active participation will be, as always, much appreciated.

Could Religion Have Played A Role In The Younus Saga?

As reports come in of Inzamam playing a major part in the ouster of Younus I am reminded of the time when Younus was seen as the anti-Inzamam: he was energetic, confident and media savvy. He also didn't have a beard and would not be waking the team up at 3 a.m. before an important world cup match so that they could offer Tahajjud prayers.

Could it be that Younus' lack of religiosity resulted in him losing control of a rather religious team?

Or it could be a result of him being a Karachiite who spoke his mind, that might not have gone down well with the Punjabi lobby?

What do you guys think?

Help Needed

A friend of mine asked me to identify the flag to Zardari's left here. I am ashamed to say that I simply do not know. You guys have any ideas?

Journalistic Ingenuity Of The Day

Sid Lowe describes what one Spanish journalist did when asked to write a hundred-word report on a particularly boring game of football:

Asked for 100 words on Recreativo's crashingly dull 1-0 win over Real Sociedad, Marca's José Luis Hurtado wrote: "Maradona, Di Stéfano, Pelé, Cruyff, Van Basten, Gullit, Zidane, Gento, Puskas, Roberto Baggio, Torpedo Muller, Zico, Bergkamp, Eusebio, Futre, Blokhin, Breitner, Cabrini, Conti, Elkjaer, Laudrup, Garrincha, Gascoigne, Krol, Francescoli, Matthaus, Beto Alonso., Gigi Riva, Rossi, Antognoni, Beckenbauer, Bobby Charlton, George Best, Giggs, Kempes, Boniek, Romario, Bonhof, Liam Brady, Careca, Jarzinho, Cantona, Cafu, Luis Suarez, Kubala, Deyna, Didi, Eder, Donadoni, Redondo, Hagi, Giresse, Haan, Uli Hoeness, Rummenigge, Dalglish, Keegan, Kopa, Tigana, Guardiola, Rivera, Rivelino, Mazzola, Schuster, Simonsen, Falcao, Hugo Sánchez, Ronald Koeman, Pereira, Mágico Gonzalez, Mauro Silva, Maldini, Franco Baresi, Panenka, Bebeto, Overath, Tostao, Waddle and Zola would not have liked this match. Nor did I."

This Will Go Over Well With The Zaid Hamid/Shireen Mazari/Ahmad Qurashi Crowd: The US Has Plans To Guard Pakistani Nukes In The Event Of A Mutiny

Apologies for the long title. This is from Sy Hersh's latest piece in the New Yorker:

Obama did not say so, but current and former officials said in interviews in Washington and Pakistan that his Administration has been negotiating highly sensitive understandings with the Pakistani military. These would allow specially trained American units to provide added security for the Pakistani [nuclear] arsenal in case of a crisis.

That's not even the best part of the the story. This is:

A senior Pakistani official who has close ties to Zardari exploded with anger during an interview when the subject turned to the American demands for more information about the arsenal. After the September 11th attacks, he said, there had been an understanding between the Bush Administration and then President Pervez Musharraf “over what Pakistan had and did not have.” Today, he said, “you’d like control of our day-to-day deployment. But why should we give it to you? Even if there was a military coup d’état in Pakistan, no one is going to give up total control of our nuclear weapons. Never. Why are you not afraid of India's nuclear weapons?” the official asked. “Because India is your friend, and the longtime policies of America and India converge. Between you and the Indians, you will fuck us in every way."

Alright, loyal readers. Set everything aside and try and figure this one out with me: who's this "senior Pakistani official"? You guys are very smart, so I know we can do this. We know that:

1. It's a man (ruling out Farahnaz Ispahani and Sherry Rehman).
2. It's someone unguarded enough to speak to Sy Hersh, even if it's off the record (ruling out anyone in an actual position of national power, such as Gillani, because they're all scared shitless of the Western press).
3. It's someone who is claimed to be to close to Zardari (ruling out 99.999999999% of Pakistan's population).
4. It's someone who feels comfortable using the word "fuck" in an interview (ruling out people who don't feel comfortable speaking in English in a natural way, such as Rehman Malik).
5. It's someone who has traces of anti-Indian sentiment (ruling out Husain Haqqani).

My guess is Salman Taseer. I know it's out there, but I always like darkhorses/underdogs in my betting schemes. Thoughts?

UPDATE: I just realized that in writing this post, I neglected to exhort you to go read the whole piece. It's really, really entertaining, and contains all sorts of juicy quotes. Say this for the New Yorker: their investigative reporting and feature writing is never, ever, EVER boring. Take twenty minutes out of your day to read the whole thing -- trust me.

UPDATE II: People may conclude based on the title of this post that the U.S. actually has contingency plans for safeguarding Pakistani nukes (uh, my bad for leading you on). If you read the actual piece, you'll realize very quickly that that is highly, highly unlikely. They (the Americans) don't actually have any real information because the military (quite rightly, in my view) refuses to be truthful on matters of nuclear security when discussing it with them. In a word, it's all bullshit.

Song Of The Day

Today, I wrote close to 2500 words of academese that no one other than me, my advisers, and these people will ever read. My brain was and is fried. It took me about four hours of near constant writing, editing, backspacing, footnoting, reading, underlining and, most importantly, bullshitting.

I had this song on repeat for about one quarter of that time, making the day slightly more bearable.

Meera: The Interviewer

SM recently forwarded me a short clip featuring Meera and Tapu Javeri that is currently doing the rounds on the interweb. Its titled "Meera The English Guru" and as can be be expected its purpose is to have a laugh at the expense of Meera who has a strange, overwhelming desire to speak in English, a language she is entirely incapable of speaking. Here's the clip:



The clip is borderline funny but not really hilarious, what is startling though is the manner in which the producers are exploiting the situation by making her speak in English, at one point near the end Meera even says that "yay meray say nahin hoga." Like I said earlier, one can laugh at Meera's expense because she puts herself in compromising situations and craves attention like nobody's business. But what cannot, and should not be tolerated is the role played by television producers in exploiting these shortcomings - I understand that exploitation is prevalent throughout the world, but that doesn't mean it should be so readily accepted. As it is, despite the strides made in recent years, its still not easy for women to be part of the media or entertainment sector and when producers start exploiting them then it makes it even harder for this to change.

All said, I love Tapu Javeri's nonchalance throughout the clip.

Apologies For The Lack Of Posting

I'm very busy for the next week or so -- I have a fellowship application due on Wednesday -- so posting will be pretty light until then. I have two op-ed type pieces in the works though, and I also figure to liveblog our two T20 games against NZ next week, so stay tuned for that.

Receipt Of The Day (Updated Below)

Via Ezra Klein, we discover how Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich can spend $47,000 in one afternoon at a Manhattan restaurant.

I'd make some joke about this being worthwhile compared to Malouda or Kalou, but honestly, I think this is funny enough as it stands. Needs no embellishment from me.

UPDATE: Can I note just one thing here? You have to be a pretty shameless restaurant to charge a 20% tip when the customer is already paying more than the annual salary of the waiter with just the base bill. I wonder if Roman just told them make it an even 50k.

UPDATE II: Can I note another thing? That's an awful lot of booze for six people at 2:30 in the afternoon. Even for Russians.

UPDATE III: Okay, last point, I promise. Apparently the restaurant sucks. Beautiful. Seriously, read these reader reviews from New York magazine and tell me this is not the greatest thing ever. An average rating of 2.6 (out of 10). Just beautiful.

PML(N): The One Dish Party

At a recent wedding in Lahore I was surprised to learn that the Punjab government has once again introduced the one-dish law at weddings - hosts are, by law, prevented from serving more than one item of food. The PML (N) had, in its last stint leading the federal government, introduced the same law in the rest of the country but that law didn’t last the test of time. This is a monumentally stupid, culturally insensitive and unnatural law, and speaks volumes about the strategic depth of the PML (N)’s thinking. It also remains highly popular in Punjab, which is why it was the first legislation passed by the Punjab government. The rationale behind this law seems to be that it prevents wastage of food and stops families from trying to outdo each other in the food department even when they can't afford such luxuries.

First of all, there are better ways of ensuring that food isn’t wasted. Most people I know don’t throw away the food that’s left over; they take some home, distribute some amongst family members and give out the rest to the poor.

Secondly, people who treat weddings as competitions and imagine that being outdone in their choice of menu by the other side is a slight on their izzat are idiots and will always try act stupidly. The one-dish rule doesn’t inculcate humbleness in these people, it only directs their energies elsewhere: if its not the menu, they'll be competing over the venue, the clothes, the jewellery, the event planner, the cars, etc.

And surely when it comes to humbleness, Nawaz Shariff should first tell his family members to stop importing Siberian Tigers and stripping forested mountains to build gaudy summer palaces.

I can’t help but feel that there may be another reason for the Nawaz League’s decision enforce this inane law, they hate Pakistani weddings that are heavily influenced by South Asian traditions. I'm going out on a limb because I have nothing to support this contention but it wouldn’t surprise me if the Shariff brothers considered the purging of ‘Indian traditions’ from Pakistani weddings as their obligation. They are after all important leaders in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

Speaking of important leaders, shouldn’t the second largest party in the country, the leader of which has twice been elected Prime Minister show some sort of interest in issues of national importance such as say the civil war we're fighting, the outcome of which may well define our destiny? Ahsan has already pointed this out in his post here, and I'd asked similar questions here. I can understand the PPP’s hesitance on this issue, if things don’t go as to plan (whatever that plan may actually be) the pressure on them will be insurmountable therefore its best to keep the operation out of the public eye, but shouldn’t the PML(N) be voicing out some sort of opinion on the matter?

The only thing I’ve heard from the PML (N) has been their opposition of the Kerry Lugar, which by the way came about after the army had voiced out their frustrations over the bill’s language. In any event, the PML (N)’s opposition seemed to have little to do with the bill and more to do with their inherent hatred for America. It would have been nice to see a genuine debate on the bill, the PML(N) should have questioned the government how it allowed the statements requiring Pakistan ‘to do more’ to be inserted despite assurances by the Obama administration that this would not be done; it could also have questioned the government what is the point paying millions to lobbyists and PR firms and then have the Indian lobby kick our ass so handily, instead what we got was a farcical, myopic exercise in anti-Americana.

The PML (N) is in an enviable position, it is a political party not in power in a country faced with many, complex problems. It has the luxury of not having to prove the worthiness of its arguments, all it needs to do is criticize the government’s actions and present an alternative – it could be an unworkable, hair brained idea, but it should offer a solution to the big problems facing the country.

Instead, we get deafening silence on the biggest issue of them all: Militancy. Militants in NWFP. Separatists in Baluchistan. Terrorists in their own backyards. Nothing but silence from the PML(N). Can anyone please tell me the PML (N)’s plan to deal with these issues? There only answer seems to me to be: let the army deal with it.

The PML (N) has plenty of intelligent, politically savvy people in its ranks, but all of them seem incapable (or unwilling) of forming a policy that is based on a long term view, they instead seem to relish issues that bring short term popularity.

Case in point: The Sugar Crisis. I’ll leave it to the able chairman of the Competition Commission of Pakistan, Mr. Khalid Aziz Mirza, who was appointed by the Supreme Court to file a report on the Sugar shortage during proceedings in appeals filed by different parties against the Order dated 03-09-2009 of the Honourable Lahore High Court, Lahore, which fixed the retail price of sugar at Rs. 40 in the province of Punjab (I'm trying to find the report online, once I do I'll add the link). The CCP states:

• As will be revealed later in this Report, the Government of Punjab admitted during the hearings held by the Commission that no professional exercise was done to arrive at the cost of production-related data while fixing the “support price”.

• Punjab government's crackdown adversely affected the supply-chain - trucks belonging to the USC were stopped from carrying sugar across provincial lines as well.

• This crisis of non-availability was precipitated, in particular, by the actions of the Government of the Punjab in August 2009 when it sealed the sugar mills and seized the stocks lying with the mills. This contributed in a most direct manner to interference with the normal demand-supply linkages of the sugar market. The panic on the part of the provincial governments disturbed these linkages to the detriment of all stakeholders, especially those on the supply-side such as sugar mills, dealers and retailers.

• It is the Commission’s considered view that the present crisis did not arise because of a price hike but more so because of mismanagement on the part of the Federal and particularly the provincial governments. The crisis actually began when the Punjab government panicked at the rising sugar prices in August and sealed sugar mills while seizing the stocks lying with them.

Just to be clear, the above-mentioned passages are mere snippets from a 48 page document that blames the federal government, provincial governments and the media for creating this crisis; but the Competition Commission holds the Punjab government to be most responsible. Moreover, it should be noted that the Supreme Court was not too pleased with the Competition Commission’s report as it did not agree that the market alone should determine the price. The Honourable Supreme Court can't just shed the limelight when popularity is to be gained!

In light of the above, the PML (N) doesn't seem like the 'business party' it fashions itself to be and one really has to wonder whether its policies have ever brought long term gains to Pakistan’s economic climate. No matter what one thinks of General Musharraf's regime, its hard to deny that his administration did bring about economic wealth (admittedly this wealth was divided unevenly) and introduced measures that would improve the country’s economic well-being and prove valuable in the long run. Let's not forget that before being thrown out in 1999 the PML(N) wanted Pakistanis to eat grass so that we could blow up a mountain as part of an advertising campaign launching our brand in North Korea and trade with North Korea, and once we'd all had our share of the grass we could return to our newly built ghars [houses], park our freshly re-painted yellow cabs and go to sleep.

The last point that I wanted to raise is that despite its lust for popularity, the PML(N) appears to have given up on the three provinces not named Punjab. A while back Nawaz Shariff made a hue and cry about him being barred from coming to Karachi, nobody’s stopping him now. And nobody’s stopping him from going to Baluchistan, where the federation is slowly losing its limited control.

It's time for the PML(N) to grow up and not leave the big issues to the army, it needs to have clear policies and act like a major political party.

Priorities

So I'm on Dawn's webpage, and this is what I find myself staring at:

Does that seem a little strange to you? The fact that our leaders and political stalwarts are mired in petty political disputes concomitant with innocent Pakistanis bearing the brunt of militant violence every week? Just a touch out of touch?

Cyril Almeida talked about this issue a couple of weeks ago, but I want to reiterate the point here, in a slightly different way.

No reasonable observer of politics can think that leaders and elected officials and powerful politicians will live the lives that common citizens live. It just won't happen, and it's foolish to expect it. When people complain about being vulnerable to terrorism while the Zardaris of the world are secure in bullet-proof Mercedes and ample security, it is a pointless complaint.

What isn't a pointless complaint, however, is the complete lack of empathy our leaders -- from Zardari to Gillani to Nawaz Sharif -- have shown during the last month of violence. As I said, they cannot know what ordinary citizens are going through. But they should at least pretend to care. They should act like leaders and not children at a birthday party, each most concerned with securing their share of the cake oblivious to the world around them. Would it be so unreasonable to hear something along the lines of "This is a difficult time for us all. We know that all Pakistanis' hearts are filled with despair, anger, fear and hurt. But we are in this together. We must remain unified and strong, and Inshallah, we will persevere in this conflict"?

Sometimes we forget this, so it bears repeating: the Pakistani state and its citizens are at war. Is it really so ridiculous to expect the government to provide some comfort and sense of unity in a time of war? Or is that reserved only for when we're fighting India?

But no, seriously, I can definitely see why the NRO is super-important right now and is worthy of a summit-level meeting between the PPP and its coalition allies. First things first, right?

A Family Destroyed By Terrorism

As another blast rips through a civilian target, a market in Rawalpindi, the BBC tells us the story of Adnan Hussain, a teenager who lost his entire family in the Peshawar blast. Here is Adnan in his own words:

We had all been at my grandmother's house. My mum told me to go and fetch my dad from my uncle's place so we could all go to buy bangles and clothes and other stuff for the [cousin's] wedding.

I went to get my dad but decided not to go shopping and stayed with my uncle.

.......

An hour later, we heard the blast.

.......

I ran to the hospital and waited.

One after the other four bodies came in. I really can't describe how it felt.

I lost my mother, father, two aunts, my four sisters and my brother. Sonia was 12, Irum was eight, Sehrish was six, Fariah was five and my younger brother Salman was three years old.

They still haven't found five of the bodies.

What did my family do? Why would anyone do this to them? I don't understand.

And where was the security? They always tell us there's a red alert and security is high but there was nothing.

..........

I still have my grandmother, and my uncle told me not to worry and that he will take care of my schooling.

But all I can think about is that terrible day and I want to cry.

How Stupid Does The PIA Think We Are?

As the government bends over backwards to keep the airline afloat, the grateful people at PIA have this to say:

THIS is apropos of your editorial , “ PIA’s nosedive” (Oct 21). PIA is nowhere near bankruptcy. It is meeting all its financial obligations itself without any subsidy from the government.

It has credit worthiness among global financial institutions and material supplying agencies and it is meeting all its financial obligations towards its creditors, vendors and posting operational profits. Fuel is not the only factor, still a major factor of financial losses to the airline.

The other factor is the devaluation of the Pakistani rupee against US dollar.

As an accounting requirement, PIA had to book the exchange difference on the entire amount of outstanding US dollar loans which contributed a net exchange loss of Rs24.1bn.

This exchange loss alone is almost 180 per cent of last year’s total company losses.

The high fuel prices, which reached $147/barrel in July 2008, contributed an additional expense of Rs15.5bn, the expense would have increased to Rs18.4bn if stringent savings, realised through fuel-efficient policies, capacity and route rationalisation plans, would not have been activated.

Both the rupee-dollar disparity and fuel prices were beyond PIA’s control and compelled a loss of Rs39.7bn during 2008.

The PIA management contained non-fuel expenses to just seven per cent as compared to an increase of 27 per cent in its net revenues. PIA’s total yearly percentage of employee expense is much lower than global averages.

For some understanding and as comparables it may be mentioned that the International Air Transport Association (IATA) reported global airline losses of $16.8bn in 2008. The projected airline industry loss for 2009 as projected by IATA is $11bn.

SYED SULTAN HASAN

General Manager, PIA

Karachi

(Courtesy: Dawn, Letters to the Editor)

The Most Dysfunctional Relationship In The World

If you've watched The Sopranos, then you've had the experience of being bemused at the insanity that was the relationship between Christopher and Adriana (culminating in one of the most memorable hits in the entire series, when Silvio shot Adriana in a forest after Christopher ratted her out for talking to the FBI).

Well, Pakistan and the U.S. make those two look like Abelard and bloody Heloise. Consider the following facts:

1. Aid from the U.S., and other financial institutions such as the IMF at the behest of the U.S., have helped keep Pakistan's economy afloat at a time of great peril. To that end, the U.S. is promising seven and a half billion more dollars, and yet the reaction to that promised aid -- wrapped up in a maelstrom of nationalistic, ill-founded and uninformed outrage -- would suggest that the U.S. is stealing that amount of money from Pakistan's coffers, or worse.

2. Pakistan has paid enormous costs, both in treasure as well as in blood, in taking on militant outfits on its soil. And yet the near-constant refrain of "do more" from the U.S. continues unabated. Most recently, the visiting Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that she disbelieved that the government was doing all it could to eradicate the presence of al-Qaeda from Pakistani soil. "Al Qaeda has had safe haven in Pakistan since 2002. I find it hard to believe that nobody in your government knows where they are and couldn’t get them if they really wanted to." Such statements, especially two days after one of the most horrific terrorist attacks in Pakistan's history, smack of insensitivity from someone who is supposed to be the highest diplomat of her country.

3. On the one issue where both governments seem to agree -- that of drone attacks -- the Pakistani populace is angry, both at the civilian toll exacted in the attacks as well as the the perceived incursions on Pakistan's sovereignty the attacks represent. Depending on which poll you trust, between 75 and 90 percent of Pakistanis oppose the use of drones in the tribal areas. This anger was manifested in townhall-style meetings Secretary Clinton held with Pakistani students and professionals on her visit. The strange thing about this anger is that the Pakistani government has, in effect, signed off on the use of drones, and so the logical place for the populace to direct their ire is toward the leaders they democratically elected, not the foreign country those democratically elected leaders have found an agreement with. But that is clearly not the case.

I don't have any broad policy-specific recommendations here. I just wanted to highlight what I consider to be an extremely strange state of affairs. With the abnormally high levels of distrust present in this relationship, it has to be the most bizarre alliance I have ever come across in international politics. Secretary Clinton's visit has brought this vision into sharp focus; it is unclear, from this vantage point, what exactly the three-day tour accomplished, or was meant to accomplish.

It also begs a broader strategic question: if the U.S. and Pakistan cannot cooperate or see eye-to-eye when their security interests overlap for the most part (the dismantling of militant networks on Pakistani soil), when huge amounts of aid are transferred, when diplomats from both countries try to sweet-talk the other to considerable lengths (for every Holbrooke or Clinton reference to seekh kababs, there is a Husain Haqqani or Shah Mahmood Qureshi reference to a "long-term partnership"), is there any hope for this relationship?

Don't shake your head; it was a rhetorical question.

A Scary Thought From Paul Krugman On Growth And Jobs

Reacting to the news that the U.S. economy actually grew in the third quarter of this year, Krugman throws a wet blanket on things, and says growth isn't happening fast enough to affect the high levels of unemployment at present:

At this rate, we wouldn’t reach anything that feels like full employment until well into the second Palin administration.

Heh.

I Know Men Are Supposed To Be In To Younger Women And All

But come on man. This is ridiculous.

The Curious Fundamentalist

This is one of the craziest things I've heard in a long time, it involves a relative of my aunt's called S. S is a native of Karachi, she was always quite curious, a tomboy who liked playing with boys but who showed no interest in boys as she grew up. Her liberal parents never pushed her into being a 'typical Pakistani girl', and she was left to explore her identity, and even when this identity entailed 'close friendships' with girls it was left unspoken, never forbidden.

A few years ago, while she was in her mid-30s, S deserted Pakistan and left for America. She soon deserted being a woman and became, S the man. Her family, while taken aback stood by her, they didn't discuss the issue in the open but never disowned her and continued to treat like she belonged to the family. Recently, they were all shocked to see S return with a shoulder length beard, knee length shalwar and a woman by his side, his wife.

S was now a fundo. Not only that S now considered homosexuality a sin, trans-genders an abomination and people who have had sex change operations to have failed in the ultimate test. S now goes around the U.S. telling people how every single day he repents for having changed his sex, his identity crisis was a test from God and he failed.

Its quite apparent to me me that S needs serious help, his family really does need to intervene. At the same time what is interesting is that while S appears to be a Moulvi, he's ideologically much closer to a right wing evangelical christian.

In a recent email with NB we discussed how Islamic ideology which now appears backwards was revolutionary at the time but has since failed to adapt. There is no verve or dynamism to modern Islamic theology, and zealots have been given a free reign to define the religion. Even worse, modern Muslim 'scholars' (i.e. opportunist nut jobs) seem to be borrowing new ideas from their right-wing Christian brethren (i.e. opportunist nut jobs). So now we have people like Harun Yahya entering the Creationism v Evolution debate, offering a Muslim opinion, which really nothing more than a recycled lecture from Liberty University. The Quran is vague enough about the concept of creationism that evolution doesn't pose as much of a problem even for Muslims who believe in the literal interpretation of the Quran.

Then we have abortion regarding which we are getting to a point where most Muslims now believe abortion to be haram and permissible only if the life of the mother is in danger or where conception occurred after a rape (though even this is now being looked down upon). The Muslim pro-life campaign bases most of its arguments on Chapter 17, Verse 31 of the Quran which states:

"Kill not your children for fear of want; it is We who provide sustenance for them as well as for you; for verily killing them is a great sin."

The issue though is complicated by the acceptance by most Islamic schools that spirit is breathed into a fetus at 4 months, therefore before this period a fetus can't really be considered to be a child. This leaves the room open for a theologically sound Muslim pro-choice camp and in fact various scholars agree that while abortion during the first 4 months is wrong, it is not a punishable wrong. (The BBC summarizes abortion in Islam here.)

The stranger than fiction case of S and the Islamic movements on evolution and abortion show how conservatives of different religions are feeding off each other, this can't be a good thing.