This May Be the Funniest Thing I've Read All Week

Granted, the week just began. But I doubt there will be anything as hilarious as Vanity Fair copy-editing Sarah Palin's resignation speech. Consider this the death blow that finishes off the work of their stabbing last month.

The Missing Ingredient

Here's something I wrote at the conclusion of the second test between Pakistan and Sri Lanka. It's about the geographical origins of our players and the way it typifies their style.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Back when I was a child, I was subjected to atrocious PTV coverage of cricket with godawful commentary and even worse ads. One of the ads was by Movenpick, which tried to convince us that the ingredients for its ice-cream came from all over the world: that the chocolate in its chocolate ice cream came from Switzerland and that the pistachios in its pistachio ice cream came from Italy, even though I knew for a fact it was just a product of some nutter in his basement, using the same dodgy syrups that gola-ganda wallahs use.

It later struck me that the same dynamic which purportedly underpinned Movenpick’s ice-cream was reflected in the composition of the Pakistan cricket team: geographical specialty. In Pakistan, there are three basic repositories of cricketers: Karachi, Lahore, and Everywhere Else. And with only a few exceptions, players from each display similar tendencies and traits.

Cricketers from Karachi are street-fighters. The get in your face, and they don’t take nonsense from anyone. They are always up for a mid-pitch chat and are usually the mentally strongest of Pakistani cricketers. These characteristics are born of the environment which they grow up in – an unforgiving and grim city, the country’s capital of commerce and business and industry, a hodgepodge of ethnic and sectarian groups living side by side. In such surroundings, only the strong (and cunning) survive. You figure out unconventional ways to get ahead, take shortcuts, and work hard. There’s nothing pretty about Karachi – a concrete jungle with few sights of natural or constructed beauty – and there’s very little that’s pretty about Karachi’s cricketers. But similar to the relationship between the city and the country at large, Pakistani cricket teams have historically relied heavily on Karachiites, from Hanif Mohammad to Javed Miandad to Rashid Latif to MoinKhan, because these are the people who provide the backbone and fight.

Cricketers from Lahore too betray their origins. Lahore is a city of gardens and basant, of fun and frolicking, of grand mosques and red brick architecture. It is, in short, a classical and beautiful city. The cricketers it produces mirror these characteristics. They tend to be attractive in their play, technically correct, and easy on the eye. Think of Wasim Akram in full flow, or a Mohammad Yousuf cover drive, or Imran Khan’s wind-up just before he bowled (and please save the emails; Imran Khan may be a Pashtun, but his cricketing education took place in Lahore, at Aitchison). Cricketers from Lahore, as well as other big cities in Punjab similar in their DNA to Lahore such as Multan (think Inzamam) and Sialkot (think Zaheer Abbas), have generally provided the flair for the national team.

Finally, there’s Everywhere Else. Little can definitively be said about Everywhere Else, for the region stretches from the Hindu Kush to the Arabian Sea, from the Durand Line to Rajhastan. But because cricketers from Everywhere Else tend to come from more obscure backgrounds, they have to do more to be noticed. To that end, they tend to one thing well, and nothing else, because it is that one thing that will stand out at the various camps and trials from which Pakistani talent is plucked. Waqar Younis (Burewala) or Mohammad Asif (Sheikhupura) show this to be true: enormously talented with the ball with almost unnatural gifts (Waqar’s pace and direction, Asif’s control and seam movement), but like all other Everywhere Elsers, these two – at least at the beginning of their careers – were incapable of doing anything else. No matter, because Everywhere Elsers fulfill the all-important role of outrageously talented specialists.

Of course, these are gross generalizations, and there are always exceptions. Pakistan’s most successful opening partnership ever shows the flip side of these characterizations. There have been few more languid and beautiful players in Pakistan’s history than Saeed Anwar, who batted like a typical Lahori, especially when playing through the off-side. Saeed, as we well know, was born and bred in Karachi. By the same token, Aamir Sohail was an extremely strong and punchy individual, street smart to a fault, and combative in almost everything he did. He, of course, is a Lahori through and through. In general, however, the point stands: Karachiites provide the fight, big city Punjabis the flair, and the Everywhere Elsers fill in the gaps.

This gets us to a diagnosis. Pakistan’s second innings in the second test against Sri Lanka spoke volumes. The one player to provide the most fight was, quite naturally, Fawad Alam. And where is he from? Karachi, of course. Did Fawad and his ungainly shuffle make anyone forget about Lara or Kanhai or Gower? No. But, pardon the expression, he showed balls – Karachi balls. No one else did, except for perhaps Younis (who showed with his dismissal that, owing to his originating from a different planet, he defies such geographic characterizations).

Fawad’s role speaks to a larger problem: for quite a while, the hardnosed Karachiite role in the national side has been completely vacant. There is no one that opposition teams hate playing against, no one to rile them up, no one to get in their faces with constant chatter and a game to back it up. Asim Kamal had the mental fortitude and the talent but lacked the opportunities, Faisal Iqbal had the motor mouth and the opportunities but lacked the ability, and Shahid Afridi – well, aside from his superlative performances in the T20 World Cup, he has wasted his quite considerable talents; if anything, his performances against South Africa and Sri Lanka showed us what could have been for the last decade. To get back amongst the elite in international cricket’s small fraternity, Pakistan needs more Fawad Alams. Put differently, it needs more Karachiites.

Fortunately, the new chairman of selectors is Iqbal Qasim, himself from the port city. If ever there was a time for the chairman to play regional favorites, now is the time. For Pakistan’s test team, there really is nowhere else to go but up.

YouTube of the Day

If you're out on the streets battling KESC, you might want to recruit John McEnroe, Leander Paes and Robert Kendrick.

Links For The Weekend

It's been a long time since I had a links post. Let's get right into it.

This was a really interesting article in the Washington Post a few days ago on the crazy hours that White House staffers keep. Whatever we may say about leaders and politicians, one thing we should note is that politics is really, really hard. I know I can't function very well if I get less than seven hours of sleep two nights in a row. You read this piece and I guarantee you'll have a greater appreciation for what these people do. Doesn't mean you have to like them or support their policies, mind.

Courtesy reader Karachi Khatmal in comments, this has to be the most amazing thing ever. It's a bunch of clips from Barack Obama's book (the audio version). Curse words never sounded more awesome. Please check it out.

According to Hamas, Israel is supplying the Gaza strip with chewing gum that boosts sex drive, in order to corrupt Palestinian youth.

I had a post planned on this whole abolition-of-local-government issue, but then I got lazy/sidetracked. I will instead outsource it to Saesneg and Mosharraf. Make sure to read the comment of one Al Kazan on Mosharraf's piece.

Technological glitch + this story = too much irony for any one person to handle.

Courtesy Naqiya, check out this brilliant segment featuring Rachel Maddow and Pat Buchanan. Classic stuff, really.

A great Joy-of-Six piece in the Guardian, featuring great team goals. Some fantastic clips there, and make sure to check out some of the comments too. Somewhat inexplicably, the list featured neither this Argentina goal from the 2006 World Cup...



...nor this Barcelona goal against Liverpool. Barca basically kept the ball for a full four minutes before Overmars was released.



A great little passage from Milan Kundera, probably my favorite fiction writer, on history/historiography. On the basis of this, he would make an excellent interpretivist.

Glenn Greenwald has an excellent piece on the hypocrisy of the mainstream media in their celebrations and commemorations of Walter Cronkite's life.

Many of you might have already seen this, but in case you haven't, here's a Hillary Clinton interview with Dawn right before her India trip. What's with Dawn and these major interviews? Dial it back a notch, will you guys?

Courtesy Farooq, please check out the only two people quoted in this Times of India article on our government's Cyber Crime Act. This can only mean one thing: Fatima Bhutto is in love with me, wanted to see our names together, and arranged for this by calling up her peeps at the ToI. Listen up, Fatima: I'm spoken for, ok? Just back off already.

What the hell is an e-cigarette? More importantly, who in their right mind will ever say the following: "You know, I've just had two chicken tikkas from BBQ Tonite with 3 parathas. You know what will really polish this meal off the right way? No, no, not a Benson. An e-cigarette." By the way, for the kids out there, smoking is bad. Don't do it. For the adults out there, yes, I know: I shouldn't lie to kids.

Those Obama-isn't-an-American-citizen rumors from the nutjob right have really stepped up now. A soldier to be deployed to Afghanistan refused to go, on account of the "fact" that Obama is not his commander in chief, since he's not President, since he's not American. Please read this World Net Daily (fringe right-wingers) article and note (a) the triumphant tone, and (b) the creepy advertisements.

An interesting poll: 37% of Indians expect Asif Zardari to do the right thing in world affairs. Is it a good or bad thing that he inspires greater confidence in India than in Pakistan?

Alright, back to work for me. Have a good weekend guys.

Which Novels Would You Kick Out of the Literary Canon

Noah Millman at The American Scene has an interesting twist on the usual desert island question. He asks which books you would vote off a desert island. The rules are quite simple. The novels should be generally well-regarded and should not be a minor work by a major novelist. So, while Midnight's Children would be eligible, The Moor's Last Sigh would not.

Here's my list:

1: James Joyce- Ulysses

I am not including what is widely considered to be the greatest novel ever just to be a contrarian. I have genuine difficulty getting past the first 50 pages and I must have made at least half-a-dozen attempts. I even took a class on Ulysses at college but dropped it after a week.

I'm a huge comic-book fan and when the Watchmen movie came out a lot of friends borrowed my copy. Most came away disappointed. I would explain to them that to appreciate Watchmen they needed a solid grounding in superhero comics, needed to understand just how much the quality had dropped by the 1980s and understand the conventions of the genre. Watchmen was an act of revolt against superhero comic strictures and to make that the first comic you read is akin to trying to make sense of the French Revolution without knowing anything that came before it.

Fans of Joyce have made a similar argument about Ulysses. They argue that Ulysses was a successful to redefine the novel and throw off its shackles. I even read a piece calling it (and this was meant as praise) an act of terrorism against the novel. If that is the best case that can be made for Ulysses, I just don't buy it. Superhero comics needed to be reinvented in the 1980s, the novel was doing just fine in the 1930s.

I'm humble enough to admit that the fault must lie in me. I may even attempt to read Ulysses some time in the future and hope I have become smart enough to get it. Until then, I'm chucking it in the ocean. I might add that the only reason One Hundred Years of Solitutde isn't on the list is because I have exactly the same objections to it as I do to Ulysses.

2: Ayn Rand- Atlas Shrugged

I doubt this will be a controversial choice. Very few people above the age of 16 (other than right-wingers with the mental faculties of a 16-year-old) defend the literary merit of Rand's novels. She has only two stock characters: strawmen and the caricatures who take them apart. John Galt may be the worst example of this. His speechifying bears no relation to language as spoken by human beings. Plot exists only to further her political propoganda. instead of using characters towards whom she is unsympathetic to further our understanding of human impulses and emotions, she merely categorizes them as The Looters and is done explaining their motivations.

3: Jack Kerouac - On the Road

As the legend goes, Kerouac banged out the novel in a six-day frenzy. It shows. There are passages of lyrical genius, but one has to wade through too much pointless dreck to make it worthwhile. There really isn't much to say about On the Road - which in itself is a indication of how ordainary it is. On the Road has often been compared to improvisitional jazz, something else I that sounds much better in theory than practise.

4: F. Scott Fitzgerald - The Great Gatsby

I actually quite like this short novel but am including it on the list because it is vastly overrated. The plot wouldn't be out of place in a soap opera and the character's actions seem driven by plot needs. Yet, the final sentence ("So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past) is so perfect it lends what came before it a gravitas it doesn't deserve. Never before had such brilliant writing been wasted on a story so thin and unsatisfying.

5: Herman Mellville - Moby Dick

If you just removed all the dull ocean and whaling tutorials, there's a decent adevnture story hiding in there somewhere. Good luck finding it though.

Over to you guys. Make your lists in the comments and explain why I'm such a dumbass.

Breaking News: Barca Sign Ibra, Eto'o Going To Inter

Wow. I don't know if this is worse or better than signing David Villa. Proper analysis to follow, but just wanted to let you guys know.

Blog Recommendations And Thoughts On The Pakistani Blogosphere

Three recommendations for you guys today.

First, on U.S. politics, I don't believe I don't have Five Thirty Eight linked on our blog roll over on the right hand side of this page. I've been reading it for more than a year now; I basically got into it for the statistical analysis of the U.S. election and primaries last year. I read it pretty regularly even now, and it always has interesting (and non-statistical) posts. It's very empirical and well-reasoned, so check it out.

On the Pakistan side of things, two really excellent blogs you guys should check out. First up is Roznamcha-Bach maintained by Saesneg (no, I don't know what that blog title refers to either). It's really smart and well-written. The second is erase and rewind maintained by Saba Imtiaz. It is also really smart and well-written (I wish I had better adjectives, but in these cases, it's appropriate). I highly recommend both of them, and making them a part of your daily read.

By the way, the only reason I'm not recommending Saba's sister's blog (which is also very good, but I'm going to be spiteful and not link to it) is because I'm trying my level best to coerce them to consolidate their blogs. Seriously, does it make ANY sense to you guys that two sisters, who both have a blog, who both blog about basically the same things, would do it in different places on cyber space? I mean, what the hell happened in their childhood that forced them to do this?

On a related note, I want to make a couple of comments about the Pakistani blogosphere before I go to bed. Back when we started this blog almost three years ago, there were basically a grand total of zero Pakistani blogs that I read. I mean sure, there were a couple around that functioned as news aggregators or comment-free-for-alls, but there was little insight, analysis, and enjoyment to be had from perusing these blogs. There may have been a couple of exceptions but I must have been unaware of them.

I would say that over the last eighteen months, that has really changed (or maybe I have just been introduced to them that recently). There are some really smart and interesting and funny Pakistanis and Pakistani-origin people out there, making the Pakistani blogosphere vibrant and energetic and intelligent. Are there some really bad blogs out there? But of course. But they are being balanced, at least in my view.

One thing that has been good to see is that many of these blogs put forth views and analysis that we would not find from mainstream sources in Pakistan (no, Herald and Newsline, you don't count as mainstream). It's funny, I had a conversation about this exact topic very recently: I was interviewed the other day by this woman doing a report on, amongst other things, the state of the Pakistani blogosphere.

I told her, in so many words, that it was great to see some liberal (and I mean politically liberal, not my-dad-drinks-scotch liberal) voices out there, certainly more than proportionate to our true number as part of the population (my best guesstimate is that of the Pakistani population, about 0.5% is liberal the way I define it, and of the Pakistani blogosphere, about 30-35% is liberal the way I define it). She asked me why that is. In my opinion, selection biases can probably explain most of that discrepancy. We have to ask: who, amongst Pakistanis, is going to have a blog? Well, for one thing, it's going to be someone with an internet connection (that instantly disqualifies a vast majority of the population, don't you think?). For another, it's likely to be someone educated. For yet another, it's likely to be someone young, who actually reads other blogs and so knows what the hell a blog is.

Yes, it's true that not all young, educated Pakistanis with an internet connection are liberal (trust me, I know from personal experience). But certainly young, educated Pakistanis with an internet connection are more likely to be liberal than the average Pakistani. Thus, the average Pakistani blog is more likely to be liberal than the average Pakistani mainstream media source (though I'm positive that Zaid Hamid would destroy all of our readership statistics combined if he were to ever get a blog; luckily for him imacrazymotherfucker.blogspot.com is not yet taken).

Anyway, the basic point is this: it's great to see so many good Pakistani blogs come up in the last couple of years. May this trend continue well into the future, and may the government's dumbass Cyber Crime Act not interfere with that growth.

Speaking of good Pakistani blogs, does anyone know what the hell happened to Rabia at Grand Trunk Road?

Guest Post: An Argument For Judicial Activism In Pakistan

A couple of days ago, Bubs wrote a post that criticized the Supreme Court's actions vis-a-vis the carbon tax. Aqdas Afzal, an adjunct faculty member at the Lahore University of Management Sciences, wrote and sent me a rebuttal, not just concerned with the carbon tax but judicial activism in general. Without further ado...
_____________________________________________________________________________________

The restoration of the judiciary as a result of the peoples’ movement for the better part of 2007 and 2008 is a big positive for the Pakistani political system. The restoration of the Iftikhar Chaudhry Court has not only provided a balance between the powers of the state and the society – with the society being successful in this instance – but has also provided a much needed “success story” for the citizens of this country. This success story will provide an optimistic counterpoint not only to the hapless average citizen, who has all but given up on the government but also to the intellectual elite – the brain trust, if you will – who do not tire from harping “something is rotten in the state of [Pakistan].”

The Iftikhar Chaudhry Court has taken a driving seat role in providing relief to the aam aadmi – the common man. Consider, for instance, the very latest pronouncement from the Court in which the Court temporarily stopped the government from charging the recently imposed carbon tax resulting in an immediate relief in gasoline prices for the aam aadmi. In another instance, the Court stopped the National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (NEPRA) from increasing the prices of electricity and has directed the Authority to review its decision to increase prices. The imprint of this new driving seat role can also be seen at the level of the High Courts which have extended their ambit to social policy.

Certain quarters have labelled this driving seat role of the Iftikhar Chaudhry Court as “judicial activism” and have declared it to be detrimental to the stability of the political system. I beg to differ. Having a Court that takes an active position on all matters of economic and social policy is a positive thing, especially within the context of a developing country like Pakistan that has poor-quality institutions. Let’s try to analyze the value of this new driving seat role by looking at the following key questions: What is judicial activism? Is such judicial activism unprecedented in modern democracies? Is judicial activism always good? Is there need for judicial activism in Pakistan?

What is Judicial Activism?

Despite the fact that Prime Minister Gilani recently mentioned that “he believes in judicial activism...”, judicial activism is not always cast in such charitable terms. There is no single agreement on what judicial activism actually is. The term, however, usually refers to a biased interpretation by the court based on its personal beliefs as to what a particular law means as opposed to the interpretation of an un-biased, informed and neutral observer. The term also refers to instances in which superior courts make social and economic policy, that is, when judges “legislate from the bench.” In other words, though there is no consonance of views on what actually constitutes judicial activism, it usually has a negative connotation and represents a situation in which courts take an active position on economic and social matters.

However, judicial activism should not be confused with the role of the Supreme Court of Pakistan as the final interpreter of the constitution. This final interpretation is called judicial review. The constitution, through section VII, allows for specific powers of judicial review for the Supreme Court of Pakistan. This means that the Supreme Court may strike down any law passed by the National Assembly that the Court find’s unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has been regularly playing its constitutional role by assessing the constitutionality of laws passed by the National Assembly.

Judicial activism, then, is activism from the bench that goes beyond the day-to-day judicial review. Imbued with activist leanings, judges may pass verdicts that speak to the needs and interests of a population that is not being served by its government – due to inefficiency, corruption or disconnectedness. Activist judges may also pass verdicts which may not be popular but conform to the standards of fairness and justice. For instance, an activist Supreme Court in Pakistan may one day order the assimilation of government and private schools so as to not keep creating a semi-educated underclass. An activist Supreme Court may one day also address issues involving social and distributive justice and seek to analyze the viability of land reform in this country. In short, judicial activism is not judicial review. It goes beyond, whereby judges take a driving seat role in making economic and social policy.

Is Judicial Activism unprecedented in Modern Democracies?

In the United States, the Supreme Court has, from time to time, catered to the interests of the US population by coming out with verdicts that would have been impossible to implement politically – Roe v. Wade, I think, would be the best example of that. Moreover, the Court has really stayed ahead of the curve as far as protecting criminals from self-incrimination under duress (police torture) by guaranteeing protection through the Miranda rights.

The Supreme Court of Israel is considered one of the most activist courts in the world. For two decades the Supreme Court in Israel has consistently come out with “activist” rulings that were just, if politically unpopular. For instance, the Supreme Court in Israel consistently entertains appeals from Palestinians that seek recourse against the excesses of the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF).

Across the border, the Indian Supreme Court also has a tradition of judicial activism. The Court has recently accepted to hear a petition against the Delhi High Court’s setting aside of a law pertaining to criminalizing same-sex marriage.

Is Judicial Activism Always a Good Thing?

No. Judicial activism is not always the best thing for chiefly three reasons: First, those who oppose judicial activism argue that by engaging in activism, courts transgress on a turf that is not theirs’ to begin with. Social and economic policy making is, it is argued, is the sole province of the elected branch of the government – the legislature. Unelected judges, it is argued, have no legitimate right to overrule or strike down the policy choices of elected representatives.

Second, exercising judicial activism and preventing an elected government from making appropriate economic or social policy subverts the process of accountability inherent in a democratic form of government. Faced with an activist court, any elected government can divert blame on its ineffectiveness to that of an “activist” and “meddlesome” judiciary. Thus, it can be seen that there is some inherent tension in having an activist court as it often questions an elected government’s economic and social policy choices.

Last, judicial activism is a slippery slope. Judges need to tread very carefully in taking activist stands on matters of economic and social policy. Such caution is important as riding roughshod over the legislature or the executive will invariably create institutional gridlock. This gridlock if unresolved will have the potential to push the entire political system towards a collision - something we have seen happen all too often in this country.

Is there need for Judicial Activism in Pakistan?

Absolutely. Nearly all stipulations about the supremacy of the legislature in economic and social policy making, assume a minimum level of efficiency and transparency in the institutions of governance in a democracy. The situation in Pakistan is far from that. Both corruption at the lowest level and rent-seeking at the highest make Pakistan a tough place to survive for the aam aadmi. According to Transparency International, the civil society organization that leads the international fight against corruption, Pakistan ranks 134 out 180 countries in the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) released for 2008. The National Corruption Perception Survey (NCPS), carried out by the local chapter of Transparency International, shows that Police is no. 1 on the list of corrupt institutions in Pakistan.

The general dissatisfaction with ineffective and corrupt government is ubiquitous in Pakistan. There is a huge disconnect in this country between the rulers and the ruled. The rulers, perhaps, do not understand the daunting challenges the aam aadmi faces in the daily cycle of 24 hours. Either that or the elected representatives are unable to look beyond their myopic personal interests. To quote the editorial that appeared in The News on July 8, 2009 “ [t]he people have no spokesman. Leaders have repeatedly failed to act on their behalf.” Albert O. Hirschman, a leading intellectual, wrote in his Exit, Voice and Loyalty (1970) that a population’s dissatisfaction with its government can be ascertained through exit (emigration) and voice (protests). It would tautological to mention that both have gone up exponentially in this country.

Therefore, against the backdrop of an inefficient, corrupt and disconnected government that conveniently forgets to deliver on pro-poor policy promises like price relief for the most basic food commodities – relying on the politically expedient cash transfers program, instead – the courts have taken on a very important responsibility on their shoulders. Through judicial activism, honest, conscientious and hard working judges can force this government to be efficient, honest and in-sync with the broader interests of the nation.

In sum, then, judicial activism has a negative connotation and carries the potential of bringing the business of the state to a grinding halt. Nonetheless, judicial activism becomes a necessary evil in countries like Pakistan where governments are inefficient, corrupt and disconnected. Speaking figuratively, the Iftikhar Chaudhry court is the veritable Atlas carrying the weight of the world on his shoulders. Eventually, our future is a function of the choices we shall make as a society. We must, however, not let this Atlas shrug.

What's Good For The Goose And All That: The New Cyber Crime Act

There has been considerable discussion about the newly promulgated Cyber Crime Act. For those unaware, it is draconian in the extreme, and its effect on civil liberties will be vast. Under the new law...

Sending indecent, provocative and 'ill-motivated' e-mails or SMS is now a punishable offence in Pakistan and violators can be jailed up to 14 years under the Cyber Crime Act, Gulf News has learnt.

Overseas Pakistanis will be liable to be deported to Pakistan in case they violate the new law, according to a senior official in the Ministry of Interior.

The Pakistan government has also entered into an agreement with the Interpol to identify e-mail addresses and websites registered abroad that are being used for malicious campaigns against the government.

Think about that for a second. What is a "malicious campaign against the government"? How is a "malicious campaign" to be distinguished from regular criticism? And most importantly, what business is it of the government -- and Interpol, for the love of God -- how indecent my emails are? Am I really going to go to jail for fourteen years because my friends and I chose to be involved in a long and detailed email chain on Megan Fox?

Anyway, aside from those concerns, I think it's a great law. I just wish everyone would follow both the letter and the spirit of the law. Including the government. For example, as this Dawn editorial states, "concocted stories" about the civilian leadership are a no-no under the new law. So what happens when the civilian leaders are the ones doing the concocting? Shouldn't Asif Zardari go to jail for fourteen years for claiming that Asif Zardari went to college? It's a concocted story, isn't it?

And since "indecent" stories are now punishable, isn't it fair that we, the citizens, get to decide what is indecent too? For instance, I think it's pretty indecent that, according to the latest budget, Asif Zardari and Yousuf Raza Gillani get half as much money to fly around the world as the allocation for the entire country's primary education system (in the federal budget, that is). Shouldn't the government apparatus responsible for the budget be thrown behind bars for fourteen years? It's indecent, no?

What's really funny about this law is that the government, quite naturally, has no way to enforce it. I could try to make their job easier by publishing lies about them openly to try to make them look stupid, but they seem to be doing a pretty good job of that on their own. As you were, people.

Poll Post

You can leave your comments on this week's poll here, if you so desire.

Ladies, please remember there is no reason to be overly jealous of Fatima Bhutto's hotness and repeatedly clicking "other". Indeed, I didn't even put her up as an option because she's too pretty for me to treat her that way.

Breaking News: When Considered Dispassionately, Asif Zardari's Performance Has Been Nothing Short Of Phenomenal

Many thanks to Rishad for sending me this piece, probably my favorite article in at least six months. If there's one thing you should read today, it's this. I promise you that you won't regret it. By the way, the heading of this post is a direct quote from the piece. There, I knew that would convince you to click.

Sarah Palin, Energy Policy Wonk (Updated Below)

Sigh. I'm not actually recommending you go and read this piece in the Washington Post by Sarah Palin -- unless you're into S&M -- but I am alerting you to the fact that it exists. In the article, which is purportedly about energy policy and the environment, she doesn't once use any of the following words: pollution, emissions, carbon, or global warming. But I'm not mad at her for being stupid. I'm mad at the Washington Post for publishing this tripe. As Yglesias says:

After all, why does Sarah Palin have an op-ed on climate legislation in the Washington Post? Does she have scientific expertise? Economic expertise? Knowledge of the state of international climate negotiations?

Perhaps during her brief time in the public spotlight she developed a reputation for an unusually solid grasp of complicated policy details? Or is the idea that she’s known for being honest? A good-faith participant in public policy debates?

Well, no.

I know exactly how this is going to play out, by the way. As I said last week, Sarah Palin's resignation from her office as governor of Alaska is a very astute move. Why? Because she no longer has to, you know, govern. She can just talk shit for two years without any actual responsibility. And if you don't have any responsibility, then two things result.

One, your rhetoric can become more extreme as you're not accountable to an electorate, meaning she's going to spout all sorts of nonsense between now and when she announces her Presidential candidacy in 2011. Extremist and ideological nonsense is exactly what the Republican party wants right now, and she will be very successful. By way of illustration, consider that 71% of Republicans would actually vote for her as President today. Think about that number for a minute.

Two, she can have extremely scripted and well-organized ventures into the public eye before retreating. This op-ed is perfect in that regard, for it "shows" a policy side to her that was sorely lacking in the campaign last fall. In the warped alternate reality of the Republican party base, this op-ed (and other talks and speeches and interviews on Faux News to follow, no doubt) evinces her serious policy wonkish credentials, and supports the position that she can be serious about being a national and international leader.

I think she's batshit crazy, but I think she's batshit crazy like a fox. You watch, she will be back to haunt us very soon.

Anyway, for some comedic relief, please check out the Daily Show's two segments on her resignation from last night:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Craziest Catch
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Joke of the Day

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Half Baked Alaska
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Joke of the Day

UPDATE: It should also be clear, though I wasn't explicit about it, that Sarah Palin wrote this piece the same way Asif Zardari writes his pieces in the Washington Post. That is, she didn't. How can I tell? Well, there's actually complete and diagrammable sentences in the piece, not something she is known for. As Ezra Klein says:

It's probably a bit kind to say that Sarah Palin "wrote" this. There are no words in all capital letters. There are no sports metaphors. There is nothing at all like "*((Gotta put First Things First))*." The stylistic and grammatical tics on display in last week's speech are totally absent. Sarah Palin signed her name to this. Or at least let someone else do so.

Bilawal as Zelig

Photo Credit: Dawn

Have you guys seen the Woody Allen movie Zelig? It's about a guy who inserts himself into every important event even though he clearly doesn't belong there. Remind you of anyone?

The Supreme Court's Arbitrariness

It seems as if the showdown between the Iftikhar Chaudhry Supreme Court and the Zardari government has commenced. And the Supreme Court is spectacularly wrong and has far exceeded its authority.

In last month's budget, approved by Parliament, the government introduced a carbon tax on all petroleum products. This replaced a previous petrol levy and expanded its scope by applying to most petroleum products. Initially, the carbon tax was also levied on CNG but that was withdrawn in the final bill.

A three-member bench of the Supreme Court, including Iftikhar Chaudhry, temporarily withdrew the tax until it reached a final decision. In the same decison, the bench also said that the government could not remove a subsidy on electricity.

In retaliation, Zardari reimposed the petrol levy that had been replaced by the carbon tax through a presidential ordinance. This has also been challenged in the Supreme Court.

There are good reasons why the government introduced the carbon tax and withdrew electricity subsidies. We are reliant on the IMF and so have to agree to their demands, one of which is that the budget deficit should not exceed 4.6%. If the Supreme Court decisions are made permanent it will cost Pakistan an estimated $1.52 billion, taking the budget deficit to 4.9% and leading to a possible lending freeze from the IMF.

But even if this was not the case, what right does the Supreme Court have to tell the government which taxes and subsidies it can impose and withdraw? The carbon tax was part of the finance bill, was unanimously approved by the finance committee and passed by Parliament. There is nothing unconstitutional about it. I know indirect taxation has greater impact on the poor and imposing indirect taxes is taking the easy way out when the government should actually be working on widening the tax base, but if the Supreme Court holds that indirect taxation is against the public interest, it needs to be consistent and withdraw all such taxes, including the General Sales Tax.

It is the arbitrary nature of this decision that I find most galling. Iftikhar Chaudhry and the rest of the Supreme Court see themselves as a legislative body. They seem to have no regard for the rule of law and simply shoot down bills that are not to their liking.

It is likely that the Supreme Court will also rule against Zardari's petrol levy. They would be standing on firmer ground with that decision as the constitutionality of taxation imposed through presidential ordinances is dubious. It's just that a shame that Zardari was forced into that action by the Supreme Court's refusal to be bound by its functions and dutys.

Is Fawad Alam's Century The Worst Thing That Could Have Happened To Him?

Just a thought:

Fawad Alam is not an opener. He's never opened in his life, at any serious level of cricket, before this match. The fact that he scored a hundred in trying circumstances is a testament to his temperament and skill. But he may well have done a disservice to himself. This performance will lead our extremely-low-IQ management to think: "Excellent! We've found ourselves an opener!" when he really isn't one.

Bottomline: Fawad should be in the middle order, in place of either Malik or Misbah, depending on your point of view. We should have two openers who've actually played as openers in first class and U-19 cricket. If Fawad is persisted with at the top, he may well end up failing more than he succeeds, and summarily dismissed a year from now. And that would be a travesty.

Andrew Strauss Talking Out of His Ass

In the final overs of Jimmy Anderson and Monty Panesar's improbable match-saving partnership in the first Ashes Test, the 12th man and physio spent as much time out in the middle as the batsmen themselves. Ricky Ponting was understandably upset about this, although he should probably spend more time thinking about how this would never have happened if Glenn McGrath and Shane Warne were still around. When asked about the obvious stalling, Andrew Strauss did his best Nixon-at-the-time-of-Watergate impression:

"There was a lot of confusion, to be fair," Strauss said. "We first of all sent the 12th man out to let Jimmy and Monty know there was time left, and not the overs. Then there was drink spilled on Jimmy's gloves, and he called up to the dressing room and we weren't sure if he needed 12th man or physio.

I'm sure every profession has its "drink spilled on gloves" equivalent. In my line of work, and to be honest its an excuse I used once some years ago, it is, "What do you mean you didn't get my story? I sent it hours ago. There must be something wrong with the e-mail."

What Is With South Asians And Singing About Condoms?

What a truly awesome video this is. I'm not even joking -- it's quite educational, and is quite explicit about the uses and effects of condoms. The only drawback is that it's a bloody seven minute song, and there's men dressed as condoms. Actually, that last thing isn't really a drawback.



Of course, regular readers will be reminded of AKS' post a few weeks ago on Touch Condoms, which features a similar song-and-dance about condoms. The main difference between the two videos is that the Pakistani version tells you nothing about condoms themselves, and doesn't tell you what they actually do. Laugh all you want at the Tamils Telugus in the condom costumes, but I have to imagine that ad is more effective at population control.

Proof That Rugby Isn't Good For The Brain

This is one ridiculous story, bound to gain legendary status in due course.

Myles in hiding after scandal @ Yahoo!7 Video

Courtesy: The Guardian (they have a great weekly video round-up)

What's Obama Up To With Russia?

Anne Applebaum has a piece in Slate trying to figure out the goings-on in Russia over the last week. The basic story is this: Barack Obama basically held more substantive talks with Dmitry Medvedev than with Vladimir Putin. This is, on the surface at least, is puzzling, because everybody (supposedly) knows that Putin is really in charge, and so if you want to advance your interests with respect to Russia, you talk to the guy who can actually do something (Putin) rather than the mere figurehead (Medvedev).

Applebaum's answer is that pragmatism was behind it:

The decision to focus the American president's visit on Medvedev instead of Putin could therefore be what British civil servants call "very brave," not least of all because if you don't talk to the person who's really in charge then you can't expect to get much done. As I understand it, though, this decision was taken at least partly on pragmatic grounds: Meetings with Putin nowadays tend to turn into extended rants about Russia's grievances (this week's breakfast meeting apparently being no exception), which doesn't leave much time to pursue productive conversation. Since Putin isn't going to get into the subject of Russia's recent military maneuvering on the Georgian border (thousands of troops and hundreds of tanks began exercising there at the end of June), and since Medvedev seemingly can't do much about it in any case, the U.S. administration seems to have figured that there wasn't much point in dealing with the issue at all. Instead, it dealt with less controversial subjects—nuclear-arms reductions (which mostly would have happened anyway), fly-over rights for U.S. forces fighting in Afghanistan (which are apparently useful but not crucial)—that Medvedev might actually be able to sort out.

This may well be true, but I have another hypothesis. I should emphasize that this is mere conjecture and I have neither read nor heard this idea anywhere else: namely, Obama might be trying to subtely provoke a split between the two, and wean Medvedev to a more Western-friendly disposition.

I first got this notion when I read a story last week, before Obama's departure. Obama, always one to carefully calibrate his words, basically said that while Putin was stuck in an old way of doing things, he had hope for Medevdev.

The president said his agenda in Russia includes talks on a new treaty to curtail long-range nuclear missiles.

Asked why he intends to meet Putin, Obama said the former president "still has a lot of sway ... and I think that it's important that even as we move forward with President Medvedev that Putin understand that the old cold war approaches to US-Russian relations is outdated — that's it's time to move forward in a different direction".

"I think Medvedev understands that. I think Putin has one foot in the old ways of doing business and one foot in the new, and to the extent that we can provide him and the Russian people a clear sense that the US is not seeking an antagonistic relationship but wants cooperation on nuclear non-proliferation, fighting terrorism, energy issues, that we'll end up having a stronger partner overall in this process," he said.

You read between those lines, and it's a fair assumption, at least to me, that Obama is saying the following: "Medvedev? I can do business with him. Putin? No chance -- he's a cold warrior." And I think (again, this is just a hypothesis) that he intended on sending that exact same signal to two parties: Medvedev and Putin.

While it certainly seems that Medvedev and Putin are on the same page on most issues, and that Medvedev is perfectly satisfied with playing the loyal-delegate role, we must remember that things can change quickly. To reach for two well-known examples, both Napoleon and Stalin were promoted within their respective power structures by those above them because it was thought they would be loyal, and would never challenge the people doing the promoting. Closer to home -- in a move that seemed tragically ironic just a few months later -- Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto promoted Zia-ul-Haq above more deserving generals, thinking he would keep him under his thumb (Nawaz Sharif did the same with Pervez Musharraf, by the way). The basic lesson is that sometimes the loyal lapdog isn't very loyal if the right incentives come along.

So what Obama could be doing here is providing that incentive structure, or at least trying his best to tweak Putin. Putin, more than most leaders, strikes me as the paranoid sort, who would move perhaps too quickly to nip any domestic threats in the bud. What if the quasi-flattery got to Medvedev, and he became more sympathetic to the West and the U.S. than Putin currently is? What if Medvedev felt emboldened enough to assert his views, and voice disagreements with Putin (in private, of course)? What then? Might there be the development of some cracks in the Russian leadership, which at present seems impregnable?

Just thinking out loud.

I'm Back, What'd I Miss?

I love vacations. One week of pretending your real life, responsibilities, and work don't exist. A big thank you to Nikhil, Naqiya/Abbas, and Rishad for some great hospitality. Back to the grind, I guess.

So this is what happened in the last seven days:

1. We outdid ourselves with our abject batting on day 4 against Sri Lanka. I mean, truly outstanding. This was a classical Pakistan performance -- only we can lose a test we dominated for three out of three and a half days. Bravo. Kudos. And speaking of kudos, Farooq has a brutal take-down of Salman Butt. Don't read it if you're related to him.

2. I finally found the time to read that Vanity Fair piece on Sarah Palin that has probably had more impact as a single story in the shortest amount of time than I can remember for any other political story. Oh, man, was that a great half an hour of reading or what. She'll be back, by the way.

3. Among other things, the VF piece has meant some Republican heavyweights are taking aim at each other. This is a must-read story on their civil war over...leaks. Seriously, you need to read it.

4. This highly entertaining book review by Malcolm Gladwell is probably one of those occasions where the review is better reading than the book. It's about the information age and the price of internet content; specifically, it's about the concept of "Free".

Regular blogging resumes tomorrow or on the weekend.

Ad of the Day

Via Gawker

Quotes of the Day

No surprise that they all came from Shoaib Akhtar.

First, he explains why he didn't do what he is just doing, with just a hint of arrogance:

I kept quiet because I have a central contract and didn't want to offend the PCB, but I could have sued the Pakistan team management...I didn't want the Pakistan team to suffer because my news is published all over the world.

More arrogance:

He also said he felt shortening his run-up - as suggested by former Pakistan coach Bob Woolmer - would not prolong his career. "It doesn't suit me," Akhtar said. "My run-up is my speed, previously (in cricket) nobody has bowled as fast as I have bowled."

And yet more, you guessed it, arrogance. He seems to think he is not only good enough to be in the team but that he can pick and choose which matches to play:

"I am perfectly fine now and I can play five-day matches, why not?" he said. "But it depends on which tour suits me. Had they [selectors] considered me for the Sri Lanka series only, then I could have told you whether it suited me. If they considered me for two Test matches out of three I could have considered it."

Monday Links

Due to a variety of reasons, the Wimbledon final being one of them, I am too exhausted to post a proper post tonight. Here are a bunch of links to stuff I wanted to write about but didn't because of my laziness.

If there is one thing more annoying than 'Pakistan is full of terrorists 'stories then it is 'Look, here are some non-terrorist Pakistanis' stories. Go here to be annoyed.

Saba Imtiaz picks out some of the strangest quotes from an interview Zardari gave to the Daily Telegraph. This is some funny shit.

Jack Hitt describes how a true writer goes about his work.

You know that time you were at Okra and the salmon tasted a little off and you were too scared to complain because it was such a fancy restaurant? Well, here's how you should have gone about returning the salmon.

Robert McNamara, the architect (if you can call someone who blundered so much an architect) of the Vietnam War died today. He tried to redeem himself as president of the World Bank, and did a much better job of it than that other war-monger who also went to the World Bank. To understand the complexity of the man, you must watch Errol Morris' The Fog of War.

Even after a week, it's all MJ, all the time. I'm going to contribute to the deluge by pointing to this story showing the tackiness of his family.

You know how annoying Joe the Plumber is? Even God told him to fuck off.

And finally the Sonny and Cher of the subcontinent write a saccharine ballad solving that pesky Indo-Pak problem.

Immediate Thoughts on the Federer-Roddick Wimbledon Final

I'm too worn out by the 4 hour, 15 minute epic to do a proper post so here's a hail of bullet points:

- I called it! I told you guys yesterday that Federer would win and he did. Please ignore all my other predictions. I am duly chastened but will continue to make bold predictions in the future.
- This match was all about Roddick. He undoubtedly choked in the second-set tie break. He liked broken after the second set but kept serving brilliantly. And then he got tired at 14-15 in the fifth set and made a bunch of errors. Federer had very few flashes of brilliance and was nothing more than competent.
- Will Roddick ever forget the volley he missed in the second set? That would have pretty much been game over.
- Roddick held his serve for 37 consecutive games. He broke Federer twice and was only broken once. For him to lose is really cruel.
- I hated Roddick when he started out for his arrogance. He'd won me over a few years ago for showing grace and humour in his many humiliations at the hands of Federer. As he showed at the presentation ceremony, he still has the grace and humour. You can now add one hell of a tennis game to that. I really hope he wins another slam before he retires.
- Roddick's service was astounding but so was Federer's. He served more aces than Andy and also had more break points on his serve. Both players were brilliant on the crunch points, especially Federer whenever he was threatened in the fifth set.
- A lot of my time was wasted playing 'Spot the Celebrity'. Apart from all the usual tennis legends, you had Alex Ferguson, Sachin Tendulkar, Gavin Rossdale, Henry Kissinger, Russel Crowe and Woody Allen.
- Listening to the commentary of Vijay Amritraj and Alan Wilkins was painful. Apart from the awful jokes, they kept claiming that one player was decimating the other, based on nothing other than which player happened to win a crucial point or two. For the record, I happen to think Roddick played the slightly better match.
- There are bound to be comparisons with last year's Federer-Nadal final so let's deal with that. The two matches had completely different storylines. The former reflected a possible changing of the guard, as the young pretender took on possibly the greatest player ever on his favourite surface. The Federer-Nadal match had everything you could hope for. The quality of tennis was astounding, especially in the fourth set tie breaker and the entire fifth set. You had early dominance by Nadal, with Federer slowly clawing back.
- Had Roddick beaten Federer it would not have made him the best in the world by any stretch of the imagination. That in itself made it less exciting than last year. Also, the match was essentially a serving contest. There were very few memorable rallies and just about every service game was won with ease. The excitement generated by the match was solely because of how close it was, not because of the quality of tennis on display.
- Sorry to end on a sour note, but to expand on the previous point, the final was the worst possible advertisment for modern tennis technology. The ease with which these guys were holding serve, thanks in large part to their rackets, was ridicuolous. It really takes a lot of artistry out of the game.

Wimbledon Final Preview: A One-Sided Contest?

Just how unlikely is an Andy Roddick victory over Roger Federer in tomorrow's Wimbledon final?

Let's look at the stats.

Federer has an 18-2 record against Roddick (18-3 if you count an exhibition match in 2007). Federer has beaten Roddick three times at Wimbledon, dropping a total of one set in those victories. His 6-4, 6-0, 6-2 thrashing of Roddick at the 2007 Australian Open semi finals was one of the all time great performances and caused this hilarious press conference. All signs point to a straight sets thrashing.

Does Roddick have any hope?

Well, the last two times they met, at Madrid and Miami, Roddick took Federer the distance. But this was during Federer's four-month slump when he didn't win a single title. Roddick's performance against Murray was extremely impressive, not just because of his serve, which everyone knows is a threat, but becausehe was able to slug it out with Murray from the back of the court.

Federer's game peaked in the semi final against Tommy Haas. A scoreline of 7-6, 7-5, 6-3 may fool some into thinking that the match was close. Tommy Haas played brilliantly yet he did not have a single break point on Federer's serve. Federer's stats were astounding: His first serve percentage was around 75% and he won 90% of those points. He won 80% of points on his second serve, hit 49 winners and only 15 unforced errors.

I like Roddick, I really do. He has charm, humour, charisma and an awesome serve. A lesser man would have dropped out of the Top 20 after the mental damage Federer has inflicted on him. For him to regularly make quarters and semis and stay close to the top five is not something to be scoffed at. It's great to see him get another shot at a grand slam. But even he knows this is a step too far. If he thought he had a shot against Federer he would not have cried after beating Murray. Guys who think they can win slams don't cry tears of joy after winning semis.

Every set will be hard fought and Roddick might take Federer into a tie break or two. Given his fantastic tie break record this year (something like 25-5), Roddick may even win a set. But he is not going to be Wimbledon champion.

On a side note, since 2004 only three men have played in a Wimbledon final. I thought that was a pretty interesting stat.