Earthquake Relief And Pakistanis' Addiction To Tea

Apropos of NB's post on earthquake donations and the reactions to them, I would like to clear some things up.

First of all, questioning the need for tea to be delivered to earthquake survivors makes me neither a "scrooge" nor an "insensitive jerk". The pro-tea argument, it seems to me, is based on the following two premises:

1. Donations should not be restricted to "essential" items.
2. Tea can help people in cold weather feel warmer.

With regard to number two, I am sure blankets and tents can do a better job, and furthermore, are a more permanent solution (the quantity of tea available decreases after each use, but a tent or a blanket don't go anywhere even if you use them 1000 times).

As for number one, I don't really understand the objection. Look, there are scarce resources in the world at the best of times, and that scarcity is multiplied manifold during times of crisis. With that in mind, with resources totaling some value R, you can either

1. Buy essential items E for N people such that E*N=R.

or

2. Buy essential items E and nonessential items O for M people such that E*M + O*M=R, where M is less than N.

or

3. Buy essential items S and nonessential items O for N people such that S*N + O*N=R, where S is less than E.

In other words, if you start buying nonessential items for survivors with fixed resources, you either have to cut back on the number of people you're helping, or you have to cut back on the amount of essential items you're providing. There's no other way, and frankly, neither of those alternatives are worth it. Why does pointing out this fact make me an insensitive jerk? It's simple arithmetic.

On one level, this entire issue isn't really a big deal, because I doubt tea makes up more than 1% of the dollar amount spent by these charitable organizations, so arguing about it is quite futile. On another level however, it's very relevant in bringing up a fairly important issue: Pakistanis' addiction to tea.

As any Pakistani knows, we as a nation cannot do without this stuff. It is the one thing that unites us. Think about it: across religious, ethnic, provincial, gender, and socioeconomic lines, is there ANYTHING ELSE that all Pakistanis do? No, there isn't. I challenge our readers to name five Pakistanis they know on a first-name basis who don't drink at least two cups a day. I know for a fact I would fail this challenge.

What's the big deal, you say? Well, far be it from me to question people's private habits and preferences, but this is a national interest issue. Pakistan grows about as much tea as Antarctica, which is to say, none at all. We import it all.



How much do we import? Well, let's delve into some fun figures. Here's a recent statistical report on Pakistan's trade imbalance. You will find, if you go to page 26 of the report, that Pakistan imported 1.2 billion rupees worth of tea in the month of April 2008. Multiply that by 12, and you discover that Pakistan will import close to Rs. 15 billion worth of tea in 2008. That represents, by my calculations, more than one-tenth of our annual food-and-live-animals import bill.

Furthermore, this ignores all the sugar that goes into Pakistanis' tea, all the milk that goes into Pakistanis' tea, and, most importantly, all the water that goes into Pakistanis' tea. Think about how much weaker our sugar lobby would be if Pakistanis suddenly decided to stop drinking tea tomorrow. Think about how much clean drinking water we would save if Pakistanis suddenly decided to stop drinking tea tomorrow.

Of course, because we're addicted to tea, that is merely a pipe dream. But this isn't any old harmful addiction. Unlike hashish and heroin, Pakistan actually has to import the object of its citizens' addiction when it comes to tea. Importing something on the scale that we do with tea, when we don't need to, in times of economic peril and dwindling foreign exchange reserves that force us to go begging bowl in hand to the IMF, is a travesty.

John McCain's Scary Manichean Worldview

One of the worst things about George W. Bush's presidency - and yes, there's a lot of competition there - is the reduction of complex questions and situations into highly simplistic good vs. evil caricatures. In that respect, John McCain would actually be four more years of the Bush administration. Check out this tidbit from George Will's column:

McCain has a history of reducing controversies to cartoons. A Republican financial expert recalls attending a dinner with McCain for the purpose of discussing with him domestic and international financial complexities that clearly did not fascinate the senator. As the dinner ended, McCain's question for his briefer was: "So, who is the villain?"

That's legitimately scary.

Quetta Quake: Donations

Just to follow on from some of the comments in Ahsan’s post, below are links to charities that are involved in delivering aid and humanitarian relief to the victims of the earthquake in Quetta/Ziarat. I've listed a few so that readers may contact whomsoever is closest or most familiar to them. The organizations are listed in no particular order.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Muslim Aid, is a UK-based international relief organization that has already reached the earthquake affected areas of Baluchistan and have launched their relief operations. As of the 30th of October, their Field Office has despatched 100 tents, 300 blankets and 100,000 water purifying tablets.

Contacts:

1. Rizwan Beg, Programme Manager Emergency & Healthcare - Pakistan
Cell: 0334-5149904
rizwan@muslimaid.org.pk

2. Mujeeb Akhtar, Manager Pakistan Desk, UK
Tel: 0044 - 2073774200-12
mujeeb@muslimaid.org

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Zakat Foundation (based in Illinois) has set up a field office in Quetta, and has established a tent village at Kech/Turbat to distribute food, blankets and warm clothes. They are also soliciting donations to purchase emergency winter food packages for families, at the following costs.

Package Items------------------Quantity------------Unit Cost
Flour--------------------------------10 kg---------------$10.00
Rice----------------------------------5 kg----------------$8.00
Cooking Oil/Ghee-----------------1 litre----------------$2.00
Sugar--------------------------------2 kg----------------$1.00
Chana-------------------------------2 kg----------------$1.50
Tea-------------------------------0.5 kg----------------------
Distribution----------------------------------------------$1.00
TOTAL FOOD PACKAGE -------------------------------$25.00 (Approx £15)

The Zakat Foundation's contact point is as follows:

Khalil Demir
Zakat Foundation Executive Director
Email: info@thezakat.org
Tax ID #: 36-4476244
Toll Free: 1.866.499.6151
Ph:708.233.0555

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Edhi Foundation, as always, has a presence and is active on site.

Edhi's contact in Quetta is:

Mr Islamul Haq Pirzada

Mobile: 0092 344 82 82 602

Office: 0092 81 26 72 401

It may be better to contact your local branch. The link above contains contact details for the scores of Edhi's offices across Pakistan, as well as the US (New York), UK (London) and Canada.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Islamic Relief is accepting donations for the quake.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Institute for Development Studies and Practices (IDSP)is also active.
(For those of you looking to donate, the information on the Quetta Quake is on the right hand side, under 'Announcements')

IDSP has appealled for tents, blankets, medicine, food, water & other essentials.

Contact Person: Ghulam Rabani (Mobile 0343-8000181)

Or you can contact their office:
Dr. Quratulain Bakhteari
Ph#. 92-81-2471776, 2470243
Fax#. 92-81-2447285
idsp@idsp.org.pk

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

According to Reuters:

Chief district administrator Dilawar Khan said 170 people had been killed in that district and 350 injured.

"The rescue operation is over. We've retrieved all bodies and the injured. Now the problem is relief as there's a shortage of tents, blankets and food while the weather is getting cold," Khan told Reuters.

For those of you who would like to know what is being done, this video from ARY offers fairly comprehensive coverage and footage of the quake, as well as the local and federal response to it. I have also posted some photographs of the situation below.

Photo Credit AP(Arshad Butt)/AFP/ Dawn (Aamir Qureshi)

For Obama Fans In Chicago

Barack Obama's election night event is going to be held in Grant Park. There's a waitlist involved, and you can put your name on it here. Personally, the thought of being outdoors right next to the lake on a November night in Chicago doesn't sound particularly appealing. But to each his own.

Another Day, Another Disaster

In a year that has been marked by the free fall of the stock market, rampant inflation of essential items, political upheaval, and the severe security threat from the Taliban, all we needed was a natural disaster. The toll so far: 160 dead, and about 15,000 made homeless. Both numbers will presumably rise in the days to come, as the full extent of the damage is measured.


I don't know much about this stuff, but I'm assuming rescue and clean-up operations should be made easier than they were back in 2005 by the fact that the terrain is relatively more accessible, right?

Right now there does not seem to be much in the way of information insofar as donations are concerned. I went on Oxfam's site, and there was nothing about it (yet). I also googled "Pakistan earthquake donate" but all the results that popped up are from 2005. As soon as something comes up, I'll let you guys know.

All I can say is: our thoughts are with the victims and their families.

Photo credit: AFP/BBC

Wouldn't EVERYONE Rather Exchange Goods And Services Than Have A Debilitating And Fatal Disease?

From a report in The News:

ISLAMABAD: Foreign Minister, Shah Mehmood Qureshi has said that Pakistan needed trade ties more than aids.

Allen Sanford Pays $20 Billion To Get Laid

From The Guardian:

The antics of the Twenty20 Super Series backer, Sir Allen Stanford, during England's warm-up match against Middlesex on Sunday were the cause of concern, it was reported last night.

The Texan billionaire was pictured with the players' wives and girlfriends and images of Matt Prior's wife, Emily, sitting on his lap were greeted with shock by the players on the pitch after they were shown on the big screen. He was also pictured with Alastair Cook's girlfriend, Alice Hunt.

Stuart Broad, who was bowling, said: "When the pictures came up on the big screen there were a lot of gobsmacked people in our side. Matt Prior was in a state of shock, especially as his wife is pregnant."

I couldn't find pictures of Prior's wife, but cricket WAGS, especially from South Africa and England, are pretty smoking hot. But man he must be desperate if he has to hit on a pregnant woman.

Never Hire a Woman as Anything

Comfortably ensconced in the liberal cocoon of Rs. 5, sometimes I forget that the rest of the Pakistani blogosphere is far more representative of the country. Take the fine patriot over at Pro Pakistan, who, upon finding out that the Rangers had started inducting women, decided to register his protest in a fit of writing that almost made me regret ever having been taught to read.

He begins with a typical passive-agressive approach:

I am sure after this blog, i might be labelled as sexist and biased...

Not to mention being labelled as, in the words of Minnesota's next senator, a lying liar.

In his day's travels, the author first comes upon a male traffic policeman, who was doing his job competently, an observation that immediately damns him as untruthful. Coincidentally, he happens to then encounter two policewomen, who instead of directing traffic, were...well, I'll let him take up the story:

two ladies standing in traffic police uniforms on the side of the road caught my eyes. As usual they were very busy discussing some new trends in the market or the bad behaviour of the male gender with them. Since i was a bit angry, i waived to them to stand at the road and perform their duties instead of being too “sharmeeli” and standing on the side of the road letting the mother nature drive the system.

I have just one question to ask this sexist liar. How, in his car, was he able to hear what thet se two women cops were discussing? Maybe he was on a motorbike, but surely a law-abiding male would not break the law and drive without a helmet.

It seems Mr Pro Pakistani has as much of a problem with airborne women.

As far as flying air-crafts is concerned, i have to risk my tax paid money on them...

I guess it would be okay if women were allowed to fly non-government airplanes.

After lashing out against reserved seats for women in parliament and womens-only colleges (!), he explains why this discrimination against men is taking place. If you guessed that the Jews made us to do it, you are close, but not quite there.

The above steps taken by our enlightened ex President were surely to prove his credential to the Americans as a moderate person

I should mention, however, that Pro Pakistani dosen't go quite as far as one of the bloggers right here. Maybe we're not that liberal after all.

Kidnapping Eunuchs In Karachi: A Health Hazard

Witness the latest bizarre and depressing development from Karachi. According to Dawn, a “mysterious campaign” against eunuchs was launched this week, by persons unknown.

“F alias S told The News that last Saturday evening “she” along with her two other friends were standing at Haidery Market when five youths carrying sticks and wearing gray trousers and black shirts inscribed with “Police Security” took them away.

When “15” Madadgar policemen intercepted them, the youths aged 16 to 18 years said that they were taking them to the National Database and Registration Authority (Nadra) office to get their names registered there.

The eunuchs were driven in a van to the Super Highway where they were forced to massage the youths, said S, adding that the fake policemen also snatched money from them and abused her.

Later, the youths brought them near the terminal of G-13 mini-bus and gave them Rs20 (coins) at about 11.30 pm to leave town.

[F alias S] claimed that these people were posing as “government employees”, claiming that they had orders from Asif Ali Zardari to rid the city of eunuchs."

I don’t want to make light of what was no doubt a traumatic experience, but parts of this story are ridiculous.

Firstly, what the hell is the point of referring to someone as “F alias S”? Surely F is the alias. And if her name actually is F, then why mention it along with the alias, S?

Secondly, NADRA? For arguments sake, say you were one of the abductors in the aforementioned scenario, and the Madadgar 15 Police catch you with your pants down, along with your bored and ignorant friends, 3 eunuchs and some felonious t-shirts. One would expect you would have a nice, airtight excuse at the ready for just such an emergency. Surely you could'nt even hope to rely on the pathetic excuse for an excuse that is: “Oh Good Evening officer, me and my friends and my eunuchs are all on our way to NADRA”.

Dawn reports that this individual incident (inanity notwithstanding) is actually part of a wider ‘anti-eunuch campaign’. F Alias S continues:

"On October 23, said S, some youths took her friend from a marriage hall near Five Star roundabout and after subjecting her to a similar treatment they abandoned her on Super Highway by giving her Rs10 (coins)."

She asserts that this has happened to about 40 to 50 eunuchs from Nipa roundabout, Water Pump Chowrangi, Jail Chowrangi and other locales, all of whom are apparently still missing.

“If we have committed a crime then we should be arrested instead of being thrown into the jungle and abused,” she said adding that, she and her friends are now begging in localities instead of main markets."

If this is true, I find it quite saddening to note that some of the weakest members of our society prefer arrest by the Sindh Police over their current state of affairs.

I would also like to draw attention to the title and opening of the source article, which is annoying even if it isn't true:

‘Mysterious’ drive against eunuchs triggers health concerns'

Unknown elements have launched a mysterious campaign against eunuchs since the last week, triggering anxiety among non-governmental organisations working for the prevention of HIV/AIDS.

The NGOs fear that if this trend continues, it will force eunuchs to go underground and their alleged abuse might transmit Aids, Hepatitis and other diseases among the abusers since eunuchs are considered to be part of the high risk group.

According to DAWN, it appears that the primary issues of concern with respect to the abduction, extortion and sexual harassment of eunuchs are the health implications for the abductors and broader heterosexual society. I for one am glad they told me. Forewarned is forearmed.

I Don't THINK This Passage Is Meant To Be Ironic

But I can't be sure. From a report on American tactics in Pakistan in the NYT:

Pentagon officials have publicly praised the Pakistan Army’s aggressive campaign against militants in the Bajaur tribal agency. But privately, some American officials are wincing at a full-scale military operation that is taking a heavy toll on civilians as well as insurgents, and has not diminished the cross-border attacks.

“They don’t have a concept of counterinsurgency operations,” one senior American officer said of the Pakistanis. “It’s generally a heavy punch and then they leave.”

Does the "senior American officer" realize how ridiculous (s)he sounds?

Quote Of The Day

Has the addition of the word "now" in a sentence ever proved as humorous as it is in this debunking of an allegation by a friend of Lindsay Lohan?

Bullshit! Lindsay wears underwear all the time now.

Links For The Weekend

Stuff to read:

Kathleen Parker has clearly decided to let all of the dogs out. Here she alleges, in not so many words, that McCain chose Palin as veep because she gave him a hard-on. Or something.

Hey, did you guys catch the Presidential debate on HBO?

A great way to waste 15 minutes is to browse this photo-essay of Barack Obama by a photographer for Time. There's some fantastic shots in there, complete with some pretty detailed captions. (Keep clicking on the "Show more images" button; it goes on for a while).

Charles Krauthammer claims that he'd rather lose an election than his bearings. Too. Many. Jokes. Can. Not. Choose. Brain. Exploding.

Mosharraf Zaidi takes a brief vacation to Utopia. Hope he got a t-shirt for his troubles!

This is important because eventually, someday, a Pakistani minister of finance will have to actually stand up and say, “Enough! We don’t need the IMF to tell us we need to control spending; we need to control spending because we’re spending too much!” She will say, “We need to stop taxing the middle class, and start taxing the rich”. She will say, “The easiest way to fix the balance of payment situation is to punish the consumption of high-end luxury goods and services that Pakistan sells rupees to buy”. She will say, “The state needs to discern between taxing income, and taxing wealth, and we need to tax wealth”. Most important, perhaps of all, she will say, “I don’t care whether you fire me or not, Mr. President, Mr. Prime Minister, and Mr. Ambassador. I don’t care. I will speak truth, because I took an oath as a public servant to serve the public interest. Besides, I could never win an election anyway, and all the money I’ve made from banking will keep me and my children well fed for the rest of time”.

Blah blah blah Harbhajan and the Aussies again blah blah blah please for the love of God blah blah blah shut the fuck up blah blah blah does anyone outside these two countries blah blah blah even care about these teams anymore blah blah blah aren't South Africa blah blah blah the real team to beat in international cricket anyway blah blah blah.

Well, well, well. Look who decided to write again...it's Malcolm Gladwell! Listen up, Gladwell. Just because you're the best feature writer I've ever read in my life doesn't mean you can hop in and out of my life like this. I can't deal with this, ok? Don't ever leave for that long again, even if it is to write a book. Just promise me, ok?

Fear not, Pakistanis. There exists a way - an exceedingly simple way - out of your personal economic crises. Let these people be an example to follow:

The people of Karachi suffer yet another shock as the HBL cantonement branch of shahra e faisal was totally looted by two men who entered it at around 8pm on sunday night wearing uniforms of HBL security staff, tied the guards up and used gas cutters to break into 66 lockers. These robbers got away with sacks full of millions in cash and jewelry.

A really fascinating GM survey on nba.com. Some really interesting questions. Of course, the last one had to be this:

Which player in the NBA would you want taking a shot with the game on the line?

No points for guessing who completely dominated that one (hint: he's a prick).

If you think Pakistanis love their conspiracy theories, you have yet to meet the American right-wing. (Via Greenwald)

Arif has a very comprehensive post on the security situation(s) in Afghanistan/Pakistan.

Finally, check out these 15 highly innovative bus ads. (Courtesy Naqiya)

Would Justice Cornelius Have Pardoned FATA Militants?

I'm undecided as to whether the Pakistani legal system, in its entirety, is a bit like a monkey in a suit. Or like W, looking ridiculous in his Vietnamese Ao Dai. Or like Wasi Zafar, pretending to be a Law Minister. In each instance, you have an already strange creature made to wear something that just doesn't fit because the whole outfit is designed for something altogether different.

Consider this news item, published without a blink of a reaction from anyone (including the lawyer's movement):

"PESHAWAR: Another eight alleged militants surrendered to police here Wednesday and were freed after they swore on the Holy Quran to refrain from any terrorist activity in future."

Before the occasional reactionary reader starts making presumptions and frothing at the mouth, I am not mocking the oath on the Quran or even expressing outrage at their pardon. I am simply questioning a legal system that permits police officers the power to pardon individuals who have admittedly been involved in shootings, killings and perhaps bombings. What about common murderers, or decoits, or carjackers? Slaps on the wrist and oaths on the Quran all round?

And I'm not even being sarcastic or facetious. The latter may actually be part of a better solution. Let me lend some authority to the notion. Even Justice A.R Cornelius, a former Chief Justice of Pakistan - who was both a student of the Shariah and a Christian - asserted:

"[The British] did great work in establishing a complete system of courts and judiciary, and furnishing an example to the people ,over about 200 years of how such a system can be run.

[However] they were operating a system of justice which was imposed upon the people and did not derive from the life of the people themselves.

...To a community, a wrong by one of its members of a nature which disturbs its peace would always appear in a limited light, namely in those lights which derive from considerations of the common welfare of the community. They would not be included to exaggerated the offense, but always to minimize it and keep it at a proper level. Thus for instance, any breach of the peace can be regarded either as a breach of the local peace or reach of the kings peace. The community would tend to keep it at the former level, but the laws are devised so that the State steps in to deal with all except the most trivial breaches and the matter assumes an extra communal aspect by the intervention of Police and magistrates in many cases where such intervention might have been avoided"

Some would say that Cornelius was a tad too enthusiastic in his efforts to establish symbolic continuity between the the Pakistani Legal System and the populace's Muslim heritage. At one stage he famously suggested that Pakistan should adopt a modernized version of the classical Quranic Hadd punishment for theft, namely severing the thief's arm. Rather than sever the arm altogether (a bit hardcore for Cornelius's liking), he proposed that the 'motor nerves' connecting the brain to the arm be disconnected, thereby rendering flaccid and inoperative.

Personally, I'd disagree with Cornelius's proposal. Hazrat Umar suspended the Hadd punishment of arm severance (for the crime of theft) during a famine, arguably on the basis of Istihsan (Juristic Preference), as societal circumstances prevented the Quranic rule from being applied without the contravention of core Quranic values of social justice and fairness. Justice is not a price that is paid for lip service to Quranic formalism, let alone for some false notion of continuity. As for the whole severance of the motor nerves business, it's creepy and lacks any sort of cultural resonance or logic, so it adds zero value.

And if, according to a Rashidun, juristic preference can dictate that the operation of a Quranic rule is to be suspended in the broader interests of justice and social utility, then why not suspend the law of the land of Pakistan? Why not pardon militants who have committed crimes against the state, but repented? If their repentance is bona-fide, then surely a pardon serves the agenda of reconciliation, cools temperatures in the NWFP, and its good for the country.

In that sense, I don't take issue with the pardon. I actually think its a good idea. I just wish that the administration of justice in Pakistan was more systematic and consistent. The real injustice for our people results not from the exercise of discretion itself, but the extra legal ad-hoc-ism that characterizes its application. It is the reason our common law system is yet to fit us, in our 60 years of independence.

Consider this:

"...Mr Bush grimaced repeatedly and shifted from foot to foot, a portrait of embarrassment in turquoise blue brocade with yellow trim. It was obvious he couldn't’t wait to get it off and sure enough, moments after the official photographs were taken, he strode away, ripped it off and folded it up."

Now just imagine if he had been wearing it faithfully and consistently for 60 years. And he fully intended to do so for the indefinite future. Maybe then he wouldn't have looked like a complete idiot masquerading as a statesman.

Book Recommendation: "Among The Thugs" By Bill Buford

I recently read a book called "Among the Thugs" and I really can't recommend it strongly enough. If ever you guys are going to follow one of my recommendations, this would be the time. Just trust me on this.



What is the book about? Well, it's written by an American journalist who spent almost ten years with soccer hooligans in England (Man United fans, if you must know), and wrote about his experiences. The result is one of the most chilling and unnerving books you'll ever come across. Buford writes in such a disarming and matter-of-fact way, which makes his anecdotes about United fans "taking over Turin" or violently disrupting a dinner party of policemen in a Turkish restaurant in London or preparing for Chelsea fans in subway stations all the more powerful. I won't try to tell the stories here, because I simply will cheat you of the experience of reading them first hand. Instead, I'll concentrate a little bit on the sociological ideas that lurk beneath the surface in the book.

The one thing that stands out in the book - quite deliberately - is the illustration of the power of crowds and mobs. Buford highlights how mobs assume an identity unto themselves that is separate and distinct from the people that make them up. More importantly, however, is the idea that the members of the mob themselves change: they are no longer themselves, they no longer act like the accountant or plumber or clerk that they normally are, but as part of something bigger, something quite literally greater than themselves. Buford talks in length about crowds or mobs transforming from "they" to "it", the ultimate relinquishment of agency.

He also disabuses the reader of the notion that you or I would, under the same circumstances, behave any differently. What is clear from reading the book is that human beings have a savage side to them that cannot be hidden by an ivy-league education (some of the subjects of his book are actually quite well-to-do), only by the circumstances we choose to immerse ourselves in. We all have a little bit of crazy in us, and given the right surroundings, it WILL come out, no matter what you think of your oh-so-refined and bourgeois selves (these two famous psychology experiments showed how quickly and easily "normal" people can become intensely violent).

I only picked up the book because it was recommended to me by one of my professors here, during a class on ethnic violence. What does ethnic violence have to do with Manchester United fans wreaking havoc across the footballing centers of Europe? Why, I'm glad you asked!

The first point is something I've already touched on above: that of the mob assuming a singular identity over and above that of its constituents. The forces that can lead to the rape of 11 year-old Muslim girls and the slitting of fetuses of pregnant women are one and the same as the forces that lead to hooligans urinating in Italian cafes, pulling (yes, pulling, with bare fingers) out a policeman's eyeball from his head and kicking a youth to death simply because he happens to wear a shirt for a team not named Manchester United.

To call these acts "evil" is easy enough; to call their perpetrators the same is perhaps too easy. If these people were this evil, why wouldn't they be doing this stuff all the time? Well, because it takes being in a crowd for a certain side of you to come out. One of the great strengths of the book is the description, in intimate detail, of the escalation in passion that takes place within a crowd. Buford makes the very cogent argument that we know a great deal about what violent crowds do - we see pictures in newspapers and read articles in journals about the tremendous destruction that crowds can wring. But we know much less about how crowds become violent in the first place. We know a lot about the destination, but almost nothing about the journey. This is where Buford's contribution lies.

Another thread tying football hooliganism and ethnic violence together is the ascription of group identity. It turns out that one of the reasons for ethnic violence being so brutal and widely targeted within groups is the catch-all-ism of the entire enterprise. For instance, if you are standing in a group of Hindus, separated by some distance from a crowd of Muslims, and a stone is thrown by one adolescent from the Muslim side, it will be interpreted as "the Muslims are throwing stones". Retaliation against all Muslims is then not only "allowed" but also necessary.

(Read this paper for an argument of how successful ethnic cooperation rests on conquering that instinct. Essentially the argument is that groups get along best when the police themselves. In the hypothetical example above, for instance, no Hindu would touch even a single Muslim if a Muslim threw a stone. Instead, the Muslims themselves would punish the stone-thrower, and do so publicly, thus precluding the need for Hindus to take action against the entire group for the transgressions of a single member of the group).

The every-single-one-of-them-is-the-same-and-so-must-be-punished logic operates with football hooligans too. Buford cites the constant refrain of "their lads" when supporters of other teams are in the area in question. "Their lads" are consequently chased and beaten, and by this very act, all of "our lads" have become "their lads" to them, and the cycle is repeated endlessly.

Finally, and this is what struck me most about the book, is the notion of territoriality. When the United fans leave a trail of carnage behind them in Turin - the city of Juventus - they talk about having "taken the city." The metaphors are all war-related: taking cities, standing guard, lying in wait at tube stations as if planning an amphibious assault on Japanese shores, generals and lieutenants leading the pack, and so on. For the supporters/hooligans, it is war, much as ethnic violence is war in a much more tangible way.

Again, I can't say this enough: read this book. It's written lucidly and crisply, and the content will make you sit up on your chair (and may make you question this whole "human civilization" thing).

Quote of the Day

PCB chairman Ijaz Butt gives coach Geoff Lawson a stirring vote of confidence:

“Lawson is a useless man. But there is no use removing him now and we will allow him to complete his contract, which will not be renewed. We will suffer a huge financial loss if we terminate his contract now.”

Much Ado About Nothing

There are few things I love more than a completely pointless and meaningless controversy. Fortunately, recent (and ongoing) events at the University of Chicago have provided us all with one particularly tasty one - the furor over the yet-to-be-established Milton Friedman Institute.

Five months ago, the University administration announced that it planned on setting up a research institute for Economics which would ostensibly attract scholarly talent from all over the world. With the hallowed nature of economics at U of C, it made eminent sense to establish a separate institute centered on economics research. The school is (in)famous for its Economics department; it has links to 25 Nobel winners in Economics, more than any other educational institution in the world. It has an entire paradigm/school of thought named after it - the Chicago school of economics - that symbolizes and promotes the idea of free-markets and little government intervention in the economy.

One of the central figures in the growth of the Chicago school was Milton Friedman. Whatever one may think about his ideas, there is little doubt about his contribution to the discipline of economics - even Paul Krugman, an economist at the opposite end of the spectrum as Friedman, regards him as a "great economist and a great man." His status as a monumentally important figure in the discipline is unquestioned. These considerations led the administration to want to name the research institute after Friedman, and to provide an initial endowment of $200 million.

In what can only be regarded as an attempt to outflank those Muslims who took umbrage at the Danish cartoons, students and faculty at the school have decided to express unmitigated outrage at this affront to humanity. A body called the Faculty Senate - a body whose existence, I must confess, I was not even aware of until this week - met this week to discuss this burning issue. To give you an idea of the level of outrage we're dealing with here, the last time the Faculty Senate met was in 1984, when it discussed divestment from South Africa because of its policy of apartheid. The central demand of the faculty and some students seems to be: name it after someone else, because Friedman was controversial, and a right-winger to boot.

I'm sorry, but I simply fail to understand what all the fuss is about. I say this as someone who's sick and tired of being asked where I study Political Science, responding, and then being told "Dude! That's such a conservative school!" (No, that's the econ department and the Law School you're thinking of). I also say this fully cognizant that this stance might cause me some street-cred in left-leaning academic circles. But again: I really don't understand what the fuss is all about.

Leave aside the fact that the faculty was completely absent and expressed little support on an issue that actually mattered - that of increased funding for graduate students in the social sciences and humanities - one that actually would influence the quality of life and education at the school for everyone involved (faculty, grad students, and undergrads). Actually, let's NOT leave that aside. Let me ask the faculty quickly: where were you guys then? When we were out in the quad on brutally cold Chicago mornings asking for health insurance and asking for TA salaries to be at least one third of that of "peer institutions", where were you? Where were your meetings and emails and demonstrations and faux outrage then? Did any of you even consider having a token strike, or expressing solidarity with graduate students - students without which your classes would simply collapse? And now you're pissed off about a name? Please.

Anyway, I find this entire controversy remarkable. I'm willing to let you make up your mind about this. Read these two paragraphs from the primary group on campus responsible for taking issue with the proposed Milton Friedman Institute, and tell me what you think:

The proposal to name an institute after Milton Friedman aroused objections from many faculty members across campus. Highly respected for his technical work in economics and a vigorous polemicist in popular media, Friedman consistently depicted the free market as the solution to all problems and saw government involvement as not only counterproductive, but an affront to human freedom. He was, however, happy to work with governments when they imposed the free market policies he favored—most famously Pinochet’s dictatorship in Chile (see Klein, Grandin). In the U.S., Friedman advocated for the abolition of social security, the privatization of education, and the legalization of drugs (see Krugman, and Rayack), consistent with his libertarian views.

Our view is that naming such a major institute after Friedman is a symbolic endorsement of his views by the University. The guidelines of the Institute, as detailed in the report (excerpted here), appear to reinforce this view. They indicate a very narrow research scope even within the field of economics, not to speak of the complete disregard for other disciplines involve in the study of “economy and society,” such as sociology, anthropology, and political science. Typically centers of such magnitude at the University of Chicago are meant to foster interdisciplinary work among faculty of different departments and divisions. This hardly seemed the goal in this case.

My understanding of these objections is this: first, Friedman expounded on ideas we find reprehensible. Second, Friedman implicitly supported or associated with brutal dictators. Third, naming an institute after him constitutes "a symbolic endorsement of his views" and that is a big no-no. I'm sorry, I just don't buy any of this. Woodrow Wilson was a bona fide racist, and yet Princeton's school of international affairs is named after him, and I don't see any Princeton students up in arms about that.

The silver lining in all of this is, of course, the humor. Last week, a professor in the Econ department, and a member of the Milton Friedman Institute committee, reluctantly allowed for the possibility of a name-change.

In a move that surprised Institute advocates, economics professor James Heckman, a member of the Institutes’s faculty committee, said during a public panel Tuesday that he was open to the possibility of changing the Institutes’s name, a proposal that several colleagues firmly rejected.

“I think it’s a good idea. We could change the name,” said Heckman, a Nobel Laureate who worked with late economist Milton Friedman at the U of C.

Then backtracked:

In a subsequent e-mail interview, Heckman emphasized that he was not speaking on behalf of the committee.

“This is what I should have said: I personally would not object [to renaming it]. However, it would probably cost the initiative a lot of support,” he said. “Short answer: I am open to any idea, but we should look at the costs.”

And then had this exchange with a professor at the Business School, which I will not comment on, and choose to leave you with:

Some of Heckman’s comments set off alarm bells for his fellow Institute committee member, GSB professor John Cochrane, who has long argued that the Insistute will maintain academic integrity.

In an e-mail to Heckman, Cochrane wrote, “My strong, personal suggestion is that you are digging yourself deeper and deeper into public statements that you will regret. Now, not only is Friedman’s name expendable, the GSB political, but President [Robert] Zimmer ’rushed this through.’ He’ll be delighted to see that in print. You may have long, convoluted explanations, but that won’t do much good when this sort of thing gets out.”

Cochrane was in part referring to comments Heckman made explaining the positions of Institute opponents. Heckman had said that some of their objections stem from their belief that Zimmer rushed plans for the Institute.

According to Cochrane, Heckman’s comments about academic bias and renaming the Institute were not on behalf of the Institute’s faculty committee.

“I don’t know what Jim is talking about lately,” he said, adding that changing the name of the Institute could be a “disaster” for the University. Opponents of a name change have argued that it could alienate donors.

Heckman e-mailed Cochrane a terse response to his concerns: “Screw off, John,” he said.

The Really Right Answer

During his powerful endorsement of Barack Obama yesterday, Colin Powell chose to make one particular point about this whole "Obama is a Muslim" drivel that has sadly gone largely unstated during this election, despite being utterly plain and obvious. I have inserted the relevant video excerpt below, which I would urge you to watch.

And whilst were on the subject of the 'Really Right Answer' (or rather really obvious pertinent rhetorical question), according to GEO Prime Minister Gilani made this statement yesterday:

Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani has claimed that that his ancestors had made the forefathers of the founder of Pakistan Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah Muslims, who were originally Rajputs.

Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani revealed that his ancestors made the forefathers of the founder of Pakistan Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah Muslims.

PM said that Quaid’s predecessor Lohana Rajput was non-believer centuries ago, and he (Lohana) embraced Islam on hands of Gilani’s forefather.

Gilani made this statement in Islamabad and added that the historians marked that event a Divine decree, as we, the successors of Hazrat Ghous-ul-Azam, were to come in this part of the world and our ancestors were to make Quaid’s forefathers Muslims and Quaid-e-Azam were to lay down the foundation of this Muslim state.

Riiighht. Some have questioned whether or not the Gilanis of old really did successfully preach to the Jeenabhais of old.

However, the ReallyRightAnswer/ReallyObviousYetPertinentRehtoricalQuestion here is either

a) "Why does he think anyone cares?"

b) "What the hell is his point?"

c) "Why in Gods name is he our Prime Minister?"

I mean, not to boast or anything, but I think it is important for everyone to recognize and accept that it was actually my own illustrious blood ancestors who founded the human race and moreover spawned Gilani's ancestors. I honestly mean this. This is an actual fact.

In reality therefore, it is I who am the scion of the ultimate family, the one that created Pakistan (and populated Asia Minor, and invented all technology and founded pretty much all the countries on the planet). So balls to Gilani, foolish usurper that he is.

Sexism in the Senate

Ishaq Dar gives his enlightened opinion on the relative worth of women:

Senator Ishaq Dar and Information Minister Sherry Rehman exchanged hot words on an issue that did not relate to the war on terror. The senator in his speech remarked that during the PPP-PML-N negotiations he and Raza Rabbani were always part of the negotiating teams. But if they are to be replaced by women then there should be four women to replace two men.

Sherry Rehman objected to these remarks as being anti-woman and wanted to reply but acting Senate Chairman Jan Muhammad Jamali, who was presiding over the session during brief absence of the Speaker, did not permit.

This time, McCain is Funnier

At least I think so, and I'm rooting for Obama.

Live Blogging The Third Obama-McCain Debate

Notes from tonight.

7:58 p.m. And for the first time this election season, I’ve made it on time. In fact, I made it early. We’ve been watching “America’s Next Top Model” for the last 25 minutes, and I’ve been quite dismayed to see that approximately two of the women are actually hot enough to be models.

7:59 p.m. As I type this, Five Thirty Eight is giving Obama 354 electoral college votes (remember, you need 270 to win). Insofar as national polling is concerned, Obama is generally up between 7 and 15 points. In other words, he’s got everything to lose, and McCain’s got nothing to lose.

8:01 p.m. I think they chose this Bob Schieffer fellow because he makes McCain look young.

8:02 p.m. Hey, they’re sitting!

8:03 p.m. The first question is on the bad day Wall Street had, and how each candidate’s proposal to fix the issue is better than the other’s. Obama has come out quite wonky and policy-ish.

8:08 p.m. McCain comes back to the tax issue, claiming that Obama will raise taxes and make it harder for small business to employ people. Obama quickly corrects the record, and repeats his 95 percent/$250,000 line.

8:11 p.m. Jesus. Are we still talking about this “Joe the plumber” character? Unbelievable.

8:13 p.m. McCain says no one’s taxes should be raised. “Why should anybody’s taxes be raised?” he asks. Maybe because the deficit is a few gazillion dollars?

8:14 p.m. And the budget just so happens to be the next item on the agenda. I really hope Obama connects this question to McCain’s previous asinine statement.

8:15 p.m. Just noticed McCain scribbling some notes furiously. Hey, he’s left-handed! When’s the last time both candidates were left-handed? Come on, trivia fiends. Get me answer to that one.

8:20 p.m. It took 20 minutes for Obama to connect McCain to Bush. He, and his campaign, have been so brilliant in hammering that message home.

8:21 p.m. Oh, snap! McCain finally figured out a riposte to the Bush comparison. “If you wanted to run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago.” Nice.

8:23 p.m. Man, Obama really is the perfect combination of thinker and speaker. He’s just an outstandingly talented politician. In two minutes, he first refuted McCain’s charges against him, outlined some policy proposals, once again tied McCain to Bush, and did in all without saying “um” or “uh” or “er”.

8:25 p.m. A question on the tone of the campaign. McCain expects us to believe that the campaign is tough and dirty because Obama refused to have town-hall meetings with him. Really? Town-hall meetings? That’s why you’re calling him dishonorable and claiming he “palls around with terrorists”? Town-hall meetings? He also goes on about his hurt feelings, making it seem like Obama’s campaign has been the dirtier politician in this campaign. Since Obama can’t say it on national TV, let me: John McCain, please go fuck yourself, you lying fucking cunt.

8:33 p.m. McCain just seems like an old, cranky fool. He’s losing it. Obama, on the other hand, is so calm, it’s eerie. You can’t rattle the guy.

8:36 p.m. Mccain brings up Ayers and ACORN. He’s going down swinging, that’s for sure. Obama handles both issues deftly. Cool, calm and collected. Brilliant. He points that the people he actually associates with are people like Warren Buffet on the economy, and Joe Biden and Dick Lugar – a Republican – on foreign policy. Great touch there, showing who the people are that have and will influence his thinking. He turned an attack on his associations into a strength.

8:40 p.m. Ooh, fun! A question on running mates. Obama sounds proud of Biden, running through his expertise on foreign policy, the fact that he’s not forgotten where he came from, and his considerable legislative accomplishments. When it’s McCain’s turn, he claims “America has got to know Sarah Palin.” Really? She’s been in the public eye for six weeks, hasn’t had a press conference yet (and never will) and has had all of three interviews on TV (one of them with Sean Hannity).

8:47 p.m. A question on when the candidates expect America to be no longer reliant on foreign oil. McCain says within four years, America would not import oil from the Middle East and Venezuela. Obama says ten years is a more realistic goal, and has a very comprehensive answer on energy, oil, and related issues.

8:52 p.m. McCain is such an angry guy, it’s not funny. Temperamentally, there really is no comparison between these two.

8:56 p.m. On to healthcare. Obama solid as hell, nicely encapsulating the problem and his solution. He’s much better at debates now than his earlier performances against Hillary and the other Dems. Practice makes perfect, yes?

9:01 p.m. Obama corrects McCain’s mischaracterization of his healthcare, making him incredulous. He also points out that McCain plans on taxing healthcare benefits.

9:03 p.m. So far, Obama has owned McCain. He makes it through the next 27 minutes, I think he’s home free.

9:06 p.m. On to Roe v. Wade and litmus tests for Supreme Court appointments. McCain says he’s never had a litmus test, and never sought to impose his ideology for judicial appointments. Obama also claims he would not use a litmus test, but that he agrees with Roe v. Wade, and argues that the right to privacy should not be subject to state referendum as the federalist McCain would have it.

9:12 p.m. Abortion is boring.

9:12 p.m. Wait, that last entry came out wrong. I didn’t mean it the way it sounded.

9:14 p.m. Obama is so brilliant, it’s not funny. I mean, he’s so good at going through a list of his thoughts, item by item, carefully and lucidly. He’s so goddamn intelligent, he really is. I’m sorry I sound gushing, but this guy belongs in academia, not in politics.

9:19 p.m. Obama says he’ll give college students a $4000 credit every year in return for some sort of community service, whether it be military service, the peace corps, or some sort of community service. What a fantastic idea – it’s a real University of Chicago economist-y plan, giving the notion of incentives a central role.

9:23 p.m. I have to say, Obama has fucking steamrolled McCain in this debate. He’s been on an even keel the whole time, but more importantly, he has a rational, level-headed, and sound response to both real-world problems and McCain’s asinine comments.

9:26 p.m. Closing statements. McCain was pretty solid, and closed on an emotional note, saying he’d be honored if Americans gave him an opportunity to continue his service to the country. Obama concentrates more on the challenges and sacrifices needed to get out of the present crises America finds itself.

9:31 My closing note: it was a feisty debate, more in-your-face, and I think Obama creamed McCain. Unless they find a dead white girl in the trunk of Obama’s car, this race is done.

The Man Who Would Be King

Can you imagine how pissed off Colin Powell must be with President Bush, Rumsfeld and V.P Cheney?

Powell was a distinguished and brave soldier, who while serving in Vietnam was decorated for "single-handedly rescuing several men from a burning helicopter" (as per Wikipedia). He was also acclaimed as a worthy tactician and served as National Security Adviser under Reagan and went on to lead the U.S. Armed Forces. He attained a reverential status in the U.S. and was considered by most as the man most likely to become American's first black President.

But then he joined Bush Jr's administration (unanimously approved by the Senate btw) and boy did things go downhill from there.

Such has been the damage to his reputation, and I'm guessing so jarring has been his experience, that in an election between a black man and a soldier, this black soldier has gone AWOL.

Well, not completely AWOL, he can be found on a stage in London, singing and dancing away to hip hop beats. The BBC reports:

Ex-US Secretary of State Colin Powell has joined a hip hop band on stage in London to dance and sing in a celebration of African culture.

America's former top diplomat took centre stage along with Nigerian group Olu Maintain at the Africa Rising Festival in the Royal Albert Hall.

US pop singer Christina Aguilera and UK-born soul singer Seal also performed at the event which saw fashion collections by Ozwald Boateng and Deola Sagoe.

(Courtesy: Getty Images via BBC)

Update

I've come across some more images of Colin Powell 'in action,' and I have to say, he really seems to be enjoying himself. So maybe, after the change in his political fortunes he feels liberated and is actually doing what he actually likes. Here's another image of Mr. Powell from the same show.

(Courtesy: Brain Rasic/Rex Features via The Guardian)

This one's from 2004. Mr Powell, at the time Secretary of State, is singing YMCA in South Korea during an ASEAN summit.


A year before that, at the same summit, he was rolling around with his Japanese counterpart singing a love song.

(Courtesy: AP via BBC)

The last one's from April this year. Every rapper deserves to have dinner with a lady as fine as Ms. Jenny McCarthy. Lucky Bastard!

(Courtesy: Mandel Ngan /AFP /Getty Images via The Swamp)

War Is Peace. Black Is White. Up Is Down.

Sometimes having a little distance from a phenomenon allows you to see it that much more clearly. For me, the significance of the debate in Pakistan on whether or not the war against the Taliban and their local affiliates is "our war" has only recently been brought into focus, when I stopped thinking about it for a while, and that significance is this: in Pakistan, what should be, is reversed.

For one thing, it's quite funny - or ironic - when you think about the fact that in Pakistan, it is the political and social right that is anti-war. Nawaz Sharif, the leader of the country's second largest party, and one that sits in opposition, did not even bother to attend an all-important parliamentary hearing on the war. If that signal was not loud and clear enough for some, PML-N spokesperson Ahsan Iqbal made explicit the party's stand, and called for an end to the military operation in the tribal (and formerly settled) areas in the northwest of the country, adding a fairly bizarre and nonsensical claim for good measure, saying that "A state institution does not represent the whole government." As an aspiring political scientist, I have to tell you: that last one had me scratching my head for a bit.

The PML-N is hardly the lone voice for peace. The increasingly irrelevant Qazi Hussain Ahmed, and the always irrelevant Imran Khan, have long voiced their displeasure at the country's strategy to tackle militancy. The leader of the JI simply wants to know the answer to one question: why have the country's "rulers shut their eyes to the fact that military operation is not a solution to the problem?" The Great Khan, meanwhile, muses that we find ourselves in the pickle we're in because we "joined someone else's war and made it into our war" and that to solve the problem, he "would hold dialogue with the tribes and get them on my side" (newsflash: already happening, that too for a while) and that he "would never use my own army against my own people" - without ever delineating the contours of "my own people".

It is not my intention to question the sagacity of these pronouncements here; regular readers know exactly what I think about these issues. What does interest me, and I think is worthy of comment, is the extent to which this situation is unprecedented. I cannot, off the top of my head, recall a situation in any other country where the right is fervently anti-war when the country in question is fighting one. I'm sure our readers will be able to provide a handful of counterexamples that might make the status quo in Pakistan less of an empirical sore thumb, but the general point stands: what a bizarre world we live in where the right and hard right are locked in a mutual embrace, holding tightly the notions of peace and dialogue as if it were a child set to embark on her first day of school.

That, however, is merely one half of this Alice-in-Wonderland-type puzzle. The second half is the tepid support amongst the population of Pakistan for fighting this war. It is almost universally acknowledged as some variant of "America's war"; it is conceived of as the result of Busharraf simply agreeing to do his superpower patron's bidding, or dirty work, and is thought to have little practical benefit for the state and people of Pakistan. This feeling is so pervasive that the employment of cold hard data seems almost superfluous, but I will provide it nonetheless. Though public opinion polling in Pakistan is beset with any number of issues, these numbers should be instructive, not to mention uncontroversial. Less than one-half of Pakistanis think that the Taliban and al-Qaeda operating in the country is a problem for Pakistan. Less than one in three support the Army fighting the war at all; when the introduction of the poisonous "U.S." term is made into the question, the percentage of those supporting the war plummets to fifteen. To be perfectly honest, given anecodotal evidence, those numbers seem high to me, but we'll accept them for the time being.

What's puzzling to me is the complete absence of the rally-round-the-flag-effect in Pakistan. In most countries, when the state fights a war, it receives swathes of support almost immediately. Even if it is a civil or intra-state conflict - and thus necessarily involving contestation of ownership of the state or government - one still normally sees entire sections of the population behind the war effort. Support may die out if the war goes sour - Vietnam being the canonical example here - but at least at the beginning of the conflict, the government receives some sort of support from some sections of the population. That simply never happened in Pakistan. Why not?

One should note, if one is reading carefully, that I am not advocating blind support of the state as it goes about its merry military adventures. But I am curious as to why we did not see it - the blind support - in this case. Mine is an empirical question, not a normative one. It is especially vexing becaus, historically, Pakistani politicians and publics have not been averse to fighting wars or being generally militaristic, both against enemies (India) and "our people" (Bengalis). We're the same country, after all, that had people dancing on the streets and distributing mathai when we tested nuclear weapons (although all of those celebrations pale in comparison to this beautiful 70-second video, which I strongly urge you to watch).

So this is where we find ourselves today: the conservative and right-wing parties ardently support peace. A population historically welcoming of conflict is averse to using its military in a war. Up is down. Black is white. War is peace.

Somewhere, Orwell is smiling.

Monday Night Links

Here's all the stuff I wanted to blog about over the past week, but couldn't get to for one reason or another.

Daily Kos has a must-read post that uses Sarah Palin's words to extrapolate that she has consigned herself to Hell (literally).

I know Christopher Hitchens gets a lot of flack around these parts, but his Vanity Fair piece on Eton, despite his usual pomposity, makes for interesting reading.

Christopher Buckley, the son of the late conservative intellectual William F Buckley, and a fantastic novelist in his own right, comes out for Barack Obama. Of the few movement conservatives who have broken for Obama, I find Buckley's endorsement the most telling. Unlike, say, Andrew Sullivan, who clearly likes Obama and is trying to foist some of his right-wing positions on him, Buckley says straight up that Obama is extremely liberal but he cannot bring himself to vote for a man who would chose Sarah Palin as his running mate and conduct a disgusting campaign.

The always insightful Mike Atherton explains why it is so difficult for foreign coaches to succeed in India and Pakistan (it is telling that he left out Sri Lanka).

India presents different problems, in so much as it is not the unpredictability that challenges a coach, but the lack of it. Chappell wanted to modernise Indian ways and challenge what he saw as a cosy club of ageing, unathletic stars. But anyone who wants to challenge the status quo must remember that it is the players in India who call the shots. Sachin Tendulkar, Rahul Dravid and Sourav Ganguly are icons, wealthy and revered beyond measure, and used to playing on their terms or not at all.

At the end of his five years coaching in India, Wright reflected on his experiences in his book, Indian Summers. He recalled one of his first training sessions, how the players got off the team bus, leaving their kit for porters to take to the nets, how they sat in wicker armchairs while tea and biscuits were brought and how “when they did go for a run they set a pace that a tortoise with a double hip replacement would have found comfortable”. Post-independence cricket, the maharaja way.

The new Nobel prize winner in literature may not be as well known as you might expect:

According to the author's official biography, Le Clézio was born in 1940 in Nice and has lived in France, Mauritius (where his family has roots), Nigeria, Thailand and Mexico. He got off to an auspicious start with his first novel, Le procès-verbal (The Interrogation) in 1963. His breakthrough evidently came in 1980 with the publication of Désert. His more recent writings have captured Le Clézio in a more self-preoccupied mood, with Onitsha (1991), La quarantine (1995), L'Africain (2004) and Ballaciner (2007) each carrying autobiographical elements.

Or so the Swedish Academy tells us. Good luck finding any of these titles at your local English-language bookstore.

Montreal-based chain Archambault runs 12 bookstores, all in Quebec. Its website lists 17 of Le Clézio's books available in French. The English side of the site, meanwhile, has one result: Wandering Star, a 2004 translation of his 1992 novel Étoile errante.

And what do you guys think about Paul Krugman winning the economics prize? Since I have never studied Econ, I just assumed he was a well-regarded economist who became a bitter NYT columnist. I never realized that he had contributed original economic theories of his own.

Our favourite right-wing nut jobs over at World Net Daily reveal that Barack Obama is too dumb to have written Dreams From My Father. Their obvious conclusion: William Ayers wrote it.

The New Yorker has a fantastic piece (is that a redundant statement to make?) on the Republican war on words.

And, finally, here's why Google has inspired a large base of fanboys that can compete with the Apple crowd in enthusiasm if not misplaced superiority:

Gmail, Google's free consumer e-mail, added a unique new feature to the service Monday: Mail Goggles, which gives you the ability to double check whether you are really sure you want to send an e-mail message, particularly late at night..Here's how Mail Goggles works: it allows you to preset what times you want Gmail to double check if you're sure you want to send an e-mail. (You can add Mail Goggles by going to "Settings" in the right hand corner of Gmail and then clicking on the "Labs" tab, where it is listed as a new feature). If you enable the feature, it will default to double-checking with you that you want to send e-mails in the wee hours of Friday and Saturday by making you solve some simple math problems.

Columnist Recommendations: Mosharraf Zaidi And Cyril Almedia

If you're like me, you hold your head in your hands given the dearth of top quality columnists in the mainstream English press in Pakistan. Most columnists are either dangerously stupid, dangerously right-wing, or dangerously bad at actually putting sentences together. Two guys who are not any of those things are Mosharraf Zaidi (for The News) and Cyril Almeida (for Dawn). Both are relatively new on the national media stage, both are excellent writers, and both force you to confront hard questions in interesting ways. Importantly, they each have their own websites, so you don't have to navigate the disaster zones that are The News' and (especially) Dawn's websites. Here's Mosharraf's page and here's Cyril's. For those interested in Pakistani politics, I strongly suggest bookmarking those links.

Links For Saturday

Stuff to read:

We've finally found the perfect metaphor for Sarah Palin: "post-turtle". India Uncut has the explanation (courtesy Nikhil):

A 75-year-old Texas rancher recently explained this term to a country doctor. The conversation turned to the US election, and Sarah Palin’s vice-presidential candidacy, and the old rancher observed: “Well, ya know, Palin is a post-turtle.” The bemused doctor asked what a post-turtle was, and the old man replied: “When you’re driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that’s a post-turtle.” The rancher continued: “You know she didn’t get up there by herself, she doesn’t belong up there, she doesn’t know what to do while she is up there, and you just wonder what kind of dumb ass put her up there to begin with.”

It's good to see Nawaz Sharif really invested in this war.

Insiders said that a major part of the four-hour session remained lacklustre as majority of the participants left the house after the first hour.

The chief of PML-N, Mian Mohammad Nawaz Sharif, who had attended the first day’s meeting, was absent from the house. Only Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain and Chief of Army Staff Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani remained seated till the end.

Should I be worried that the WTB is sending me a story about a woman pouring hot water on her husband's groin?

Isn't India saying that it would not object to a Pak-US civil nuclear deal kind of like Brad Pitt saying that he would not object to a sexual relationship between Angelina Jolie and Carrot Top? Listen up, India: you can't get credit for being gracious when the probability of the event you're graciously allowing is vanishingly close to zero.

Great interview of Sarah Silverman in the Guardian. Also, if you haven't seen it already, please check out this killer joke by Silverman on Paris Hilton - with the latter in the audience. The only thing funnier than Paris Hilton's reaction is Jack Nicholson's reaction.

Finally, here's a great story on John McCain losing his shit while playing craps. No, seriously. If the repeated phrase "DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM?" doesn't entice you to click on the article, nothing will.

Have a good weekend, guys.

Can Mustafa Kamal Please Take Over The DHA

On the day that the Mayor of Karachi, Mr. Mustafa Kamal, inaugurated the Rs. 3 Billion 'Signal Free Corridor' linking Surjani Town with Shahrah-e-Faisal, the DHA administrator announced his plan to sort out the traffic issues afflicting DHA Phase 5.

In a meeting with the DHA Resident's Association, Brigadier Tirmizi (a serving officer of the armed forces) stated that:

"as a result of the study carried out by NESPAK for smooth flow of traffic in DHA, one way regimes would be implemented soon on Khayaban-e-Shaheen (Zamzama Boulevard), Khayaban-e-Mujahid, Khayaban-e-Shamsheer and Khayaban-e-Shujaat."

Awesome. I always wondered when they'd do this after the roaring success of the one way regime implemented in the alleys of Zamzama and Khadda Market!

This has to be one of the dumbest ideas ever. These roads are currently two way and people still manage to travel the wrong way; like hell, this ideas going to work.

And why the hell is the DHA even listening to NESPAK. This is the same agency that designed the double storey KPT Flyover on the intersection of Korangi Road and Shaheed-e-Millat expressway (Hino Chowrangi). The design of this flyover is atrocious; the imbeciles at NESPAK apprently forgot to take into account that the Korangi Road isn't an uniterrupted roadt but that there are several arteries that link up with this road, which funnily enough was the very reason for the flyover. As a result of the flawed design the junction from where one joins up with the expressway has become a major traffic hazzard.

There's a friggin reason why Mayor Kamal talks about a Master Plan, that shit works. Brig. Tirmizi, it's time for you to listen to the Mayor (and it's really hard not to considering the Mayor just doesn't shut up about his 'Master Plan!').

If "Wishful Thinking" Was On Steroids, This Is What It Would Look Like

From a letter in Dawn today, explaining how to help Pakistan's perilous financial situation:

THE recent news about Pakistan is very disturbing to all of us expatriates. According to a recent news report, the State Bank of Pakistan does not have funds to order oil come November. It is, therefore, becoming essential to beg and borrow and, if necessary, sell the country’s sovereignty for survival.

Here is a simple and common sense solution. Let’s do fundraising for Pakistan. There are three sources for this fundraising. Primary donors, Pakistani leaders including:

a. All of the current leaders.

b. Those that aspire to run the country and

c. Those that have run the country in the past.

Here is how they can donate to Pakistan:

1. Declare the current value of their personal assets in Pakistan and abroad.

2. Declare the source of revenue from the day they took power to the day they were forced out of the office.

3. Liquidate their assets in Pakistan and abroad.

4. Keep only what they earned legitimately and turn all excess funds to the State Bank of Pakistan.

5. No questions asked. Let’s agree to bygone be bygone.

Only No.5 is a possibility, unfortunately. Wait, there's more:

The secondary source is: while we are at being an honest country, may I offer another suggestion to the rest of the citizenry. Let’s all make a pledge to Allah that we will not accept, pay or engage in bribery, corruption, cheating, poor workmanship, price gouging, smuggling, etc.

You know, in all seriousness, it really warms my heart that there are people out there who put forward suggestions like this. It's just nice, you know? They actually believe this stuff; for someone as cynical as your humble blogger, I can't help but admire such idealism (sometimes).

America Did It - Redux

After the Marriott bombing, one noticed a marked change in the perceptions of the Pakistani people with regards to the causes of terrorism. People were more willing to accept that the violence was homegrown.

Alas, it appears that this national sojourn towards rational thought was like a snow day and the normal course of life has now been resumed; of course, in the normal course of a Pakistanis life, America is responsible for all that is bad.

In recent days I've had several conversations with seemingly intelligent people who have mentioned that the main culprit behind the attacks on Pakistan (including economic destablilisation) is an 'outside force'. Either it's India leading an insurgency in Pakistan to take control of Kashmir, or it's the U.S. wanting to bankrupt Pakistan and / or is supporting the terrorists because it wants to a) take over Pakistan's nuclear sites or b) take over Pakistan (yes, all of it) owing to its 'strategic geopolitical location'. None of this is of course news to me, but for a fleeting moment I had dared to imagine that things had changed, which makes these recent conversations just a little bit more disheartening.

The most troubling conversation on this topic occurred today at lunch. The topic of conversation had turned to how well trained and armed the insurgents in NWFP were when a person with a close association with the military referred to an article that his cousin had sent him on the topic. The cousin is an army officer and a tutor at the National Defence University, and the article he sent was written by a faculty member at the University. The article offered an in-depth analysis of the situation in NWFP and the growing terrorism in Pakistan , the conclusion reached was that America was behind the attacks on Pakistan, and is actively supporting moves to destabilise the country, which by the way included the U.S. supporitng the Taliban and providing them with weapons to fight Pakistan. Almost everyone on the table seemed to agree with this assessment; and why not, the article just confirmed what all of them already believed to be true.

After the person had finished his well referenced story about the American quest for domination, I just sat their quietly. To say anything would've been futile. I don't believe that American forces or the American establishment are behind the attacks in Pakistan, and I do believe that Pakistanis are more than capable of murder, terrorism, incitement of ethnic , sectarian and tribal tensions in order to get what they want, which in this case may be the establishment of their understanding of Sharia (I personally don't think the Taliban leadership is all that idealicetc, they just want power and know that they only way they're getting it is by unsettling the tribal system and Islam is the only way they can do that).

The raison d'etre of this post is not to argue the merits of the truth about the terrorism in Pakistan but to highlight that the truth may matter very little. If America really is behind the violence, then we're effectively at war with a superpower. If America isn't behind the attacks but the Pakistani military thinks that it is (as the article and the messenger of said article lead me to believe), then that means the Pakistani establishment does not really understand the conflict and is unlikely to properly address the matter. And when our military fails to deliver, you know what President Obama's going to do.

In essence, we're screwed!

"Why Are We Electing An A-Rab When We're At War With I-Rack And I-Ran?"

It's a legitimate question, in my view:



Don't these people remind you of these people?

Live Blogging the Second Obama-McCain Debate (Tape Delay)

Since Ahsan decided to sit this one out, and 7 am is way too early for me, I'll be live blogging the debate as I watch it on Tivo. I expect a comprehensive Obama victory that should just about wrap up the election.


1413: And it took McCain about a minute to make his first factual error. He stated that the US gets most of its oil from countries that don't exactly like it. I'll give him a pass on this one since most people don't realize that the single largest supplier of oil to the US is Canada. But then again, right-wingers probably consider Canada, what with its socialised medicide and all, to be an unfriendly state.


1417: Both McCain and Obama suggest that Warren Buffet would make a great treasury secretary. This is a complete non-starter. Apart from being the single largest shareholder in Goldman Sachs, Buffets owns billions of dollars worth of stock, all of which he would have to sell, at a significant loss, to become treasury secretary. Get real guys.

1442: And this half-hour break is brought to you courtesy of KESC and my broke ass being unable to afford a generator. McCain just thanked a questioner for asking him a very good question: How will the bailout help the common man. Expect more such condescension since 'real' Americans are asking the questions.

1445; Right after blasting McCain for helping create the financial mess, Obama said he will not point fingers at anyone.

1447: Both candidates call for a middle-class tax decrease. How exactly do they plan on paying for the $850 billion bailout. Shouldn't this be the time for calling for tax increases. I swear the Americans are so spoiled. They want more from the government but they don't want to pay for it.

1452: The best quote so far comes from McCain: "Nailing down Senator Obama's various tax proposals is like nailing Jello to a wall"

1454: Nice riposte from Obama: "The straight talk express lost a wheel on that one"

1457: Tom Brokaw is mightily pissed about the structure of the debate. Every time one of the candidates goes above their allotted time, he chides them, reminding them that these are the rules they agreed to, and they damn well better follow them.

1500: McCain proposes the use of nuclear energy as a solution to global warming. Criticising Obama on nuclear power, he says, "Senator Obama says it has to be safe or disposable or something like that." Yeah, cuz Obama's worried about like Chernobyl and shit like that.

1502: Obama makes a very strong case for government intervention to solve the global warming crisis, reminding people that it was government scientists who invented the computer.

1505: Answering a question about health insurance, McCain mentions that he may need a hair transplant. This was obviously meant as a joke but I don't get it. Quite bizzare.

1508: Finally the juicy foreign policy stuff. McCain says Obama doesn't understand foreign policy. Obama's reply: "I don't understand how we ended up invading a country that didn't attack us on 9/11" Zing.

1513: Here's a problem I have with Obama. He criticized Musharraf for making peace deals with the Taliban and suggested doing more to strengthen democracy. Doesn't he realize that a democratically elected government is far more likely to negotiate with terrorists.

1518: Dubya looked into Putin's soul and saw a pretty cool guy. McCain looked into Putin's eyes and saw KGB.

1520: Neither candidate was willing to commit to sending US troops to help Israel if it is attacked by Iran. Both dodged the question very unartfully. I wonder if this is a good or bad thing.

I sort of rushed through the debate with lots of fast forwarding because I have to be at work. But man did Obama school McCain. It'll be good to finally have a liberal president in the US.

Quotes Of The Day (Feeling Bad For AKS And Nikhil Edition)

Oh, dear.

It would be a dream to be able to play for Barcelona, but for the moment I'm very happy at Arsenal. I've decided to stay and now I'm focused on winning something. We'll see next year.

And:

Every week I chat to Alex Hleb on the phone because he's the guy I most miss at Arsenal. He's a friend and I also loved playing with him.

I mean, I guess we can find space for him in the midfield somewhere.

By the way, thanks for playing, guys. This was fun. We should do it again some time.

Links For Monday

Stuff to read:

Please watch this video of Sarah Silverman exhorting young Jews to convince their grandparents in Florida to vote for Obama. She suggests cutting off visits to them as ransom.

Speaking of Jews, here's an article on a "kosher" cell-phone that, well, I'll let BBC describe it (courtesy Wasay):

The kosher cellphone looks like an ordinary cellphone, can make and receive calls, and may have a calculator and alarm clock.

But it cannot send or receive text messages, browse the internet or take photos - all activities that could potentially involve behaviour considered "immodest" among Haredis.

For example, SMS capability could lead to the unwitting receipt of mass text messages publicising secular events. It could also be used as a method of illicit communication between male and female teenagers.

And all photos of women are forbidden, as is accessing websites with content deemed inappropriate.

Sometimes I think people like Imran Khan would be happiest living with Ultra Orthodox Jews.

Speaking of people like Imran Khan, Nawaz Sharif is trying to negotiate peace between the Taliban and the Karzai regime. Well, better for us he stays out of our affairs and fucks up Afghanistan's, yes?

Here's a couple of Sarah Palin links. The first (courtesy Adeel) is a pretty scathing column in the Guardian which has the matter-of-fact line of the week: "Palin is a never-ending train wreck of ignorance, inconsistency, outright contradiction and sneering." The second (courtesy Lindsey) is a pretty funny piece in the New Yorker.

One of the Obsidian Wings guys wonders at what point the hateful demonization of Barack Obama by the McCain-Palin ticket and their subsidiaries morphs into actual incitement of violence. Considering Obama is the first viable black candidate for President in a country that still suffers from a fair degree of latent racism - not to mention quite a bit of overt racism too - combined with the constant "He's a Muslim!" rumors in an age where Muslims are largely deemed to be terrorists in the country in question, I'd say that line has been crossed. One of Andrew Sullivan's readers concurs.

Finally, a couple of links on Business School types. The first (courtesy Nikhil) is one of those "day in the life of" tidbits from students at Harvard Business School, and this one is from a woman from Islamabad. Here's the best bit:

My phone rings. It's my mother from Pakistan who was thinking of me over breakfast. She reminds me as usual to eat healthy food, and we exchange good morning/good night wishes. I lay in bed reflecting on my journey from Pakistan to HBS. I feel blessed to be here and with that thought fall asleep.

Um, ok. The second B-School type link is this great column by Judith Warner, who can't conjure up the proper feelings of schadenfreude in response to this Wall Street crisis, mainly because we're all basically fucked along with them. This is the bottom line for me:

A couple of years ago, at the height of the boom, a friend in New York publishing described to me the indignities of being a five-figure employee commuting daily from suburban New Jersey on trains packed with traders, stock brokers and hedge-fund types.

“These were the guys who, in college, I used to step over on Sunday mornings when they were lying in a pool of their own vomit,” he said. “And now they’re earning millions and millions – in bonuses alone.”

This is the thing that has always pissed me off the most about bankers, hedge funders, private equity-ers and godknowswhatelse-ers: they're all dumber than I am. No, seriously. I know, because I went to high school and college with these idiots, and now they all make more in a year than I will make in 10 years at the peak of my career. Ok, so not ALL Wall Street-types are bad (I'm marrying one, so I guess she falls under the "not so bad" category) but in general, the point stands: these people are overpaid pricks who wouldn't know the answer to "How many World Wars were there in the 20th century" and do charity work only because it looks good on their resume.

Zardari's Fox News Interview

I'd been meaning to write a post on Asif Zardari's interview with Greta Van Susteren for a while, but professional obligations got in the way. I would urge everyone to read the transcript, its simply that entertaining.

First, you have what is most likely a lie about the intended targets of the Marriott bombing.

All of us, all the parliament, the people, all of democracy was the target. We were all supposed to be there, because it was a speakers' dinner.

This is a statement that has been disputed by the owner of Marriott.

Then there's the unverifiable:

Ah, 20 years ago Usama bin-Laden paid $10 million for a no confidence move against our government. She came, went to the American embassy, called up the American President, and complained that why is an operator who's supposed to be an American destabilizing my government.

And Bush Sr. hadn't even heard of the name Usama bin Laden.

The confident repitition of an urban myth that is pretty throughly debunked by Snope:

But Oliver North had. He said in his defense that the reason he had spent so much on the security is because he was scared of Usama bin-Laden.

And finally, there are those statements which are so incomprehensible that I am going to rely on you guys to explain them to be. My theory is that everytime he is in the vicinity of a female who doesn't look like Margaret Thatcher, Zardari, like Michael Scott in The Office, tries really hard to display a sense of humour that he is unfortunate enough not to possess. This leads to the gibberish below.

On Sarah Palin:

I think she's a very interesting lady, and she has a new formula, which is the Alaskan formula which I've been trying to tell my people back home, where you can go with the consent of the people and get to the natural resources and make sure that they get a better life from it, and the country benefits from it.

So governing through consent, exploiting your natural resources and trying to make life better for your citizens was invented by Sarah Palin?

And then this classic on the constitution and gender:

So I've already, like I told you, we've made an acting woman president in the name of Benazir Bhutto already.

So I've changed the definition of man, which the constitution reads in a non-gender. It's a non-gender issue now. A woman can be the President of Pakistan.

So my daughter one day can look forward to becoming the President of Pakistan.

So Zardari is taking credit for the fact that a woman can be president when he admits that the constitution's reference to the president as "he" is meant to be gender-neutral. The constitution also refers to the Pakistani voter as "he" so I guess Zardari is responsible for female suffrage as well.

Some Great Ads From Yesteryear

Hey, don't fuck a prostitute or the Nazis will win!


But before that, she's likely to want to find a sink with running water:


Absolutely, positively, no comment.


More crazy ads from the past here (via Andrew Sullivan).

Links For Sunday

Stuff to read:

Apparently, Zardari isn't the only top-level Pakistani official who, when meeting foreign dignitaries, behaves like a 14 year-old boy watching his first pornographic film. (Courtesy tanh1980 in a comment)

The incident bears some resemblance to yet another charm offensive by a senior Pakistani politician. Marcus Mabry's biography of Condoleezza Rice includes a passage in which he relates a meeting between former Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz and Ms. Rice, in which Mr. Aziz was said to have stared deeply into the secretary of State's eyes and to have told her he could "conquer any woman in two minutes."

Please check out what Michael Phelps - greatest Olympian and all that - eats on a daily basis. (Courtesy the WTB)

Here’s Phelps’s typical menu. (No, he doesn’t choose among these options. He eats them all, according to the Post.)

Breakfast: Three fried-egg sandwiches loaded with cheese, lettuce, tomatoes, fried onions and mayonnaise. Two cups of coffee. One five-egg omelet. One bowl of grits. Three slices of French toast topped with powdered sugar. Three chocolate-chip pancakes.

Lunch: One pound of enriched pasta. Two large ham and cheese sandwiches with mayo on white bread. Energy drinks packing 1,000 calories.

Dinner: One pound of pasta. An entire pizza. More energy drinks.

Nate Silver explains why neither Sarah Palin's negative attack on Barack Obama, nor the more aggressive and dirty Republican strategy that it portends, is likely to be successful. While you're at that website, make sure to check out the fact that Five Thirty Eight is giving Obama 333 electoral college votes and McCain 205. Simply put, Obama has blown this election wide open, for now anyway. This is further confirmed when you go to RCP's battleground states page. Obama is now leading in Ohio, Florida, Nevada, Virginia and North Carolina (all states Bush won in both 2000 and 2004). He has whittled McCain's lead in Indiana - a state Bush won by 20 points in 2004 and 16 points in 2000 - to two points. He is also up in Colorado, another state Bush won handily in both 2000 and 2004. Here's the bottom line: in the top 19 battleground states as defined by RCP, Obama is up in 17 of them. Neither of McCain's leads in the other two are more than 2.2 points.

Glenn Greenwald has a bone to pick with Biden and Palin on their responses in the debate concerning Israel, and has a question to ask:

They don't just consider Israel an ally. They don't just both support Israel. No, that's woefully inadequate. Instead: Biden has a "passion" for Israel and is its best friend, while Palin declares how excited she is that they "both love Israel."

They "love Israel"? I'm asking this literally, not rhetorically: is there any other country in the world where presidential candidates are required to -- or even could -- proclaim their "passion" and "love" for another country in a national election? And other than Israel, is there any country for which candidates for the American presidency could get away with proclaiming their "passion" and "love"?

The dollar is now close to touching Rs. 80 in the Forex market.

A Saudi cleric elaborates on his weird Cyclops/burka fantasy (via India Uncut):

A Muslim cleric in Saudi Arabia has called on women to wear a full veil, or niqab, that reveals only one eye.

Sheikh Muhammad al-Habadan said showing both eyes encouraged women to use eye make-up to look seductive.

Yes, because if there's one thing I think when I see a woman in a full niqab, it's this: that woman is showing way too much of herself for me to able to control my hormones.

Live Blogging The Biden-Palin Debate

My notes from tonight:

8:07 p.m. Late again. Oh well. Anyway, Sarah Palin’s first answer was so obviously rehearsed it’s not even funny.

8:08 p.m. Oh God. We’re treated to the notion that John McCain really did mean the “workforce” when referring to the “fundamentals” of the economy.

8:09 p.m. If I hear the word “Maverick” once more, I’m going to barf.

8:09 p.m. Sarah Palin begins an answer with the words “Darn right”. I wish I was making this up. Anyway, she’s now calling for “strict oversight” of lenders and Wall Street. Wait, she’s still on the Republican ticket, right? Nice to see Biden make the point – that John McCain called for more deregulation both on Wall Street and (more recently) in health care.

8:13 p.m. Another “darn right”. The moderator asked her if she wanted to respond to Biden’s point on health care. Instead, she says “Yes, I’d like to respond to this point on taxes.” No one, for the record, even mentioned taxes.

8:14 p.m. I swear to God, this woman is seriously mentally challenged. For the second time in three minutes, she “responds” to a point that wasn’t made. Thankfully, the moderator interrupts her by telling her time is up.

8:16 p.m. Good to see Biden hammer the $250,000-and-below point home with respect to Obama’s tax plan.

8:17 p.m. Sarah Palin just used the word “espoused”. I’m actually impressed. Looks like that 5-college education went somewhere.

8:19 p.m. Listening to this woman talk is like listening to someone scratch their nails on a chalkboard.

8:21 p.m. YEAH, JOE BIDEN! OH! He closes up his criticism of John McCain’s plan on taxing health care benefits with the line “that’s the ultimate bridge to nowhere.” Line of the two debates so far. Brought the house (ok, the room) down.

8:23 p.m. Biden’s just smiling, almost laughing, at Palin at this point. Really, I don’t blame him. She’s such a cartoonish figure.

8:25 p.m. Call it the soft bigotry of low expectations or whatever, but right now, Palin’s doing significantly better in this format than in the Couric-Gibson format where she actually has to face follow up questions. She sounds semi-semi-coherent (i.e. quarter coherent).

8:29 p.m. She’s terrible at not answering questions. I mean, she’s really, really bad at it. Good politicians can evade questions in a way that suggests to the average viewer that they answered it. Palin cannot; she simply moves on without answering it.

8:30 p.m. I’m not even sure she’s speaking English anymore. What do they speak in Alaska?

8:32 p.m. The energy/climate change part of the debate is clearly going to Biden, partly because the Dems have the facts on their side, and partly because Palin is an idiot who doesn’t know what the fuck she’s talking about.

8:34 p.m. Sarah Palin corrects Joe Biden’s narration of the “drill drill drill” line. It’s “drill, baby, drill” she gently tells him. She also brings out the George W. Bush rendition of the “nucular” pronunciation.

8:37 p.m. Biden’s first gaffe of the night. He uses the word “marriage” when referring to rights for same-sex couples. Big oops. Oh, and also, Sarah Palin calls herself “tolerant” on gay issues. Alright, then.

8:39 p.m. On to Iraq. Listen up, Palin. Stop calling it I-rack. Stop it.

8:41 p.m. I’m glad Biden brings up the fact that Obama’s plan for withdrawal in Iraq has basically been agreed upon by Prime Minister Maliki – this is something Obama did not explicitly say in the first debate (he only mentioned that “even George Bush” has agreed to this plan). Closes strongly: “We will end this war.”

8:43 p.m. Palin stutters, says “uh” and then says “your plan is a white flag of surrender.” Ok.

8:44 p.m. Palin is using the word “respect” a lot more with Biden than McCain did with Obama. Clearly the reaction to his prissiness in the first debate has taught the McCain camp a lesson.

8:45 p.m. On to Pakistan. Biden calls an unstable Pakistan as dangerous as a nuclear Iran. Not saying I agree or disagree, just telling you what he said. He sounds good when he talks about helping Pakistan with respect to its governance, and building schools to win hearts and minds.

8:46 p.m. Hey, Palin! It’s nuke-lee-er. Not nook-you-ler. You sound like an idiot, you know that right? At least she pronounced “Ahmadinejad” relatively correctly.

8:49 p.m. Yes! Palin brings another George Bush line. “They hate us for our freedoms!” Man, I missed that one. Long lost love and all that.

8:51 p.m. Biden clearly wins the question on whether or not to “sit down” and negotiate with adversaries. Well done. He’s doing well so far.

8:52 p.m. “Israel is our strongest and best ally in the Middle East,” Sarah Palin tells us. Not exactly jumping over a high bar there, are they?

8:52 p.m. Why is Joe Biden referring to himself in the third person? This is the second time he’s done it; I thought the first time might have been a mistake, but now it appears to be a strategy.

8:55 p.m. Alright, she’s completely rambling now. She went from Israel to George Bush to partisanship to the slogan of “change” in about 15 seconds.

8:57 p.m. Again! One more third-person reference by Joe Biden.

9:03 p.m. Palin hooks Biden on his having voted for the war. Can’t argue with that; dude did do so – this was the same problem Kerry had four years ago.

9:06 p.m. Another stutter from Palin, before she says “I beg to disagree.” The English language does not deserve the treatment it gets from this woman.

9:08 p.m. Strongest moment of the night for Biden. He basically says that he would carry on Obama’s policies if something were to happen to him; in about two minutes he synopsizes all of Obama’s positions on the economy, healthcare, foreign policy, taxes and everything else. Really good stretch there.

9:11 p.m. Palin brings out the “say it ain’t so, Joe” and the “god darn it.” You know, I don’t condone violence against women at all, but if I were to deliver a nice tight slap, I think I know where it would be directed.

9:14 p.m. Again, she’s doing better than she did in those godawful interviews in the last few weeks. Don’t know if it’s enough to save McCain in this election, but she’s doing ok given the absurdly low expectations she came in with.

9:16 p.m. A question on the constitution with respect to the role of the Vice President. Oh, dear. She’s just rambling again. Biden comes out strong on the question, calling Cheney “the most dangerous Vice President” in the history of the country, and clearly demonstrates that he’s well versed in these constitutional-legal questions. Brilliant answer. Round of applause (not from the crowd, just from me).

9:19 p.m. Palin says she shares the McCain-Reagan view of American exceptionalism, and that the U.S. represents the perfect ideal of democracy and freedom. I think part of my lunch is on the floor.

9:21 p.m. Biden gets emotional, talking about his first wife dying and having to raise two kids by himself. Another good little stretch. I have to say, he’s done fairly well tonight. He’s got the balance of policy detail, attacking McCain’s record, and personal anecdotes pretty good.

9:26 p.m. They close by describing how they would change the bitter partisan tone of Washington. Both solid answers. Palin also takes a shot at the evil “mainstream media” who “filter” what she says, and claims that she enjoys being able to speak to the American people directly. Alright dude, do it again then – at a press conference, where follow up questions are allowed. Come on, do it.

9:31 p.m. Biden closes strong. Wow, I’m impressed. I’m seriously impressed.

Foxwatch

First, via Andrew Sullivan, Fox manages to spin an overwhelming show of hands for Obama into a split decision.




And then Bill O'Reilly weighs in on...well I'll let Amelie Gillette of The AV Club explain:

Thanks to his new, rambling, thoroughly untethered to logical structure, personal memoir, A Bold Fresh Piece Of Humanity, we now know at least one thing that O'Reilly is still irrationally angry about: The Seinfeld finale.

"After nine years of clever writing and brilliant comedic acting, Seinfeld's closing act rivaled Petticoat Junction in witty payoff," he writes. "So what the heck happened?

"Since I'm pretty sure I understand the deep cynicism of head writer Larry David and also the middling cynicism of Jerry Seinfeld, I think these guys tanked the final episode on purpose."

Friends, I'm pretty sure I understand the deep cynicism of Bill O'Reilly, which is why I think he's suggesting that David and Seinfeld wrote a bad finale on purpose, with no evidence and/or basic logic to support his claim. Why would they crash and burn the series on purpose? Just to piss off Bill O'Reilly to such a degree that he writes about it 10 years later? (Incidentally, that's exactly why they did it, and I applaud them.)

Still, O'Reilly thinks he could have made the finale much, much better:

Using Johnny Carson's brilliant last program as a model, all the Seinfeld people had to do was assemble the cast for a one-hour "best moments" special. Just let the characters kick it around, telling viewers what mattered to them and why, and then roll in the clips. Give the folks some inside-baseball as to how the show came together each week and then wrap it up with some bloopers.

Forget the fact that Carson's Tonight Show was a talk show not a sitcom, and that Seinfeld did actually have a clip show immediately preceding the finale, O'Reilly is brilliant. A clip show! Inside baseball! Bloopers! Why didn't anyone think of these things before? People love clips and blooping while looking inside baseballs!

Bill O'Reilly should re-write every TV finale. Instead of a moving, death montage epilogue, The O'Reilly Cut of the Six Feet Under finale would be a roundtable with all of the characters discussing, "What do you think happens after you die?," and laughing about that time Michael C. Hall tripped and fell into a casket on set (hilarious!). Likewise, The O'Reilly Cut of The Sopranos finale wouldn't end with an ambiguous black screen, but with a heart-warming montage of James Gandolfini going door-to-door shaking hands with HBO subscribers and personally thanking them for watching the show.

Barcelona 2 - Shakhtar Donetsk 1

Man, there's nothing quite like stealing a win under the opposing team's nose (and in front of the opposing team's crowd). Hereunder are my thoughts on the game:

1. I know this is an understatement and all, but it's good to have Lionel Messi on your team. Every single game, he will create either for himself or someone else two or three chances to score. Whether those chances are actually taken is another question entirely - particularly given Barca's pitiful finishing over the last 18-20 months. But the very fact that every game he creates those chances means that he's the best in the world. There's simply no one else who can do that, not with the regularity that he does, not with the ungodly amount of attention that is paid to him, and certainly not with the style and silken touch that he displays.

When he came on in the 60th minute, Barca were down 1-0 and didn't even look like scoring (a welcome departure from their usual problem of looking like scoring but never actually doing so). About 10-15 minutes after his introduction, he set up Eto'o with a beautiful ball right down the middle, giving Eto'o a chance to run at the goalkeeper, one on one, from well outside the area. Of course, Eto'o fluffed it by tripping over his own feet and having no idea what he actually wanted to do, but that didn't deter Messi. For Barca's first goal, around the 86th minute, Messi lurked in the six-yard box as Bojan fired in a low cross. Keeper fumbled, Messi pounced, goal. Then, in the third minute of added time, Xavi released Messi, who made a beautiful run from the left side of the penalty area, one touch, and then delivered the calmest, cutest, and most audacious little chip under pressure you could possibly imagine. Game over.

2. These Shakhtar boys are a bunch of fucking thugs. Look, I understand that the best way to play and beat Barca is to get right up there, and not allow them to string any passes together. But there's a fairly thick line between "not giving them space and getting in their face" and "trying to shatter the shin, ankle, and jaw bones of each of Barca's players in 17 different places", and unfortunately, Shakhtar continually crossed that line. The worst of the lot was this Brandao fellow, all 6'2" and 170 pounds of him.


By the end of the night, poor Dani Alves looked like he followed up a 12 round fight with Mike Tyson with an all-night sexcapade with Courtney Love. I'm just warning any of you guys out there who support teams that might run up against Shakhtar Donetsk: be prepared for a beating.

3. Barca's miraculous escape (to reiterate, two goals after the 86th minute to win it, in Ukraine) should not hide the fact that Guardiola needs to drop whatever the hell formation he's employing. It basically looks like a 3-4-3, except the four in the middle are neither square, nor a "two wingers sandwiching two central midfielders" nor a diamond. It's basically a parallelogram on the right side of the pitch. Here, let me draw it in paint to show you what I'm talking about.


Alright, so I'm not brilliant with Microsoft Paint, but you get the idea. It basically becomes (or is supposed to become, I think) a 4-3-3 when the opposing team has the ball, with Dani Alves (the bottom right of the parallelogram) supposed to track back.

There are a number of issues with this formation. First, it leaves Barca massively vulnerable on the break with just three at the back, especially when two of those three are Marquez (clumsy) and Puyol (old). Second, it presumes Barca are solid enough to have three at the back at the best of times, when nothing in the last two years should provide such assurance, especially considering their best defender from last year (Gabi Milito) is hurt until godknowswhen. Third, it leaves oodles of space up front on the left for someone who doesn't want to be on the left in the first place (Henry). And fourth, it leaves everyone really confused as to who's playing what role in the midfield, especially when both Keita and Yaya Toure play at the same time (as they did today).

Look, I'm all for innovation, but innovation has to make sense. The fact that Barca have kept just one clean sheet in nine games thus far this season (against world beaters Wisla Krakow on August 13, almost seven weeks ago, that too at home) should tell you something.

4. Something has to be done about this Eto'o/Henry problem. Both of them are tentative because, really, there's just one spot for the two of them and I suspect they know it. They keep missing easy chances, and I'm getting really tired of it. Plus, neither of them is a spring chicken anymore. Come January, I'd like to see one (preferably Eto'o) shipped out, the other given a permanent spot in the middle up front, and some young hotshot striker brought in to be groomed.

5. Six points from two games puts Barca in the box seat in the group. It's imperative to finish on top, because finishing second usually means a killer knock-out fixture right off the bat, and you obviously want to avoid that. Thanks to today's gutsy performance - winning when you don't play well, away from home, is always a mark of a good team - Barca look to be on their way to doing so.

McCain: Apocalypse Now

Over the past couple of months, John McCain has tried every conceivable method of throwing this election, from choosing his VPILF to suspending his campaign. If, as it seems, he doesn't want to be president, I would suggest he take this bit of advice from Bill Kristol:

McCain should lead—by re-suspending his campaign (fine, let observers mock him when he announces this), and leading his party and the Congress towards a solution.

Yeah, because that worked so well the first time around. I'm seriously beginning to think Kristol is a Democratic plant; kind of like how the Others penetrated the Losties with Ethan.

And anyone who still thinks Palin will be a net positive to the McCain campaign should check her out struggling to name a single newspaper or magazine she has ever read.

What Is the Big Deal About "Catch-22"?

Now a number of friends whose opinions I respect have told me Catch-22 is one of the greatest books ever. I recently picked it up again - I have tried reading it at least a half dozen times before - thinking that this time would be different, and that with relatively few responsibilities for a few days, I might actually finish it. Nope. Once again, I couldn't get to page 50. I just found it too dumb, and the jokes too unfunny. Well, I'm finally giving up; from here on in, I'm never going to bother again, and the book will be consigned to the black hole of my book shelf, placed alongside the wonders that are Capitalist Diversity and Change: Recombinant Governance and Institutional Entrepreneurs and Political Topographies of the African State: Territorial Authority and Institutional Choice.

I don't know, maybe it's me. It is striking that ever since I entered grad school more than two years ago, I've probably read - at best - five works of fiction. This is a dramatic change from my high school and college days, when I used to read fiction voraciously. I just can't be bothered anymore, I don't think. For me, it's all about opportunity costs: why read something made up when I could be learning more about the world? Yes, I realize it's not a completely black-and-white distinction (for instance, I probably learned as much about World War I from reading All Quiet on the Western Front as any history or poli sci book I've ever read). But the general point stands, and that is that I simply feel like fiction is a bit of a waste of time, especially when there's so much non-fiction out there that I want to get my hands on and haven't yet had the time to read. And in this particular case, I can't see what the fuss is about - I've tried reading this so-called classic many times, and simply never got into it.