Lost Season Five: Episode 14

Here's what I knew about this week's episode before it aired: it would centre on Daniel Farraday, it was titled 'The Variable' (you don't need a degree in math to figure out its connection to 'The Constant') Desmond would appear and it was Lost's 100th episode. When it comes to Lost, I prefer hyperbole, but for once let me be understated and say that I was kind of excited.

No surprises that Jeremy Davies was brilliant; 'Twitchy' has been a revalation since he joined the show. But I particularly loved Eloise Hawking, especially the second time I saw the episode. And 'The Variable' is an episode that particularly rewards repeated viewings. Already knowing that she will shoot (kill?) her son, allows us to feel her pain and gives much-needed context and poignancy to what seems like another typically (for Lost) bitchy and hard-headed, maybe even evil, parent.

- Let's get the most obvious question out of the way. Is Daniel Farraday dead? Now, on Lost I refuse to believe that anyone is dead until he/she has been buried (and in the case of Nikki and Paolo even that wasn't enough) but I don't think Farraday is going to make it. The guy was going to violate the very rule he articulated: what hapenned, happened. He's got to pay the price for messing with the Island in that way. And to be more practical about it, Jack (remember him) is unfortunately the star of the show and with the finale just two weeks away he's got to do most of the heavy lifting.

- My guess is that the heavy lifting Jack will be doing is detonating the hydrogen bomb. And how does a show up the ante for its final season after exploding a friggin H-bomb? On a related note, it must be wonderful to be Matthew Fox. You get paid more than anyone else on the show and barely have any work to do. No wonder he looks so contented and at peace with himself.

- I'll be the first to admit that I cry a bit too easily but man Daniel's scene with little Charlotte was heartbreaking and may have caused my eyes to moisten just a little bit. I liked how she repeated her last line before dying: "I can't have chocolate before dinner."

- In the first Daniel flashback, when his mother tells him he will have to give up the piano because he won't have enough time to play, he replies, "I'll make time." Hahahha. Nice bit of foreshadowing.

- So, Charles Widmore is Daniel's father. That would make Daniel Penelope's brother, Desmond's brother-in-law and Charlie's uncle. Can anyone point me to a flow chart that explains all the relationships on this show in one easy diagram?

- Best line of the night: Daniel asking Kate if there were any guns for beginners. Close runner-up: "Your mother is an Other." Or even "I got shot by a physicist." For such an intense episode, there were lots of funny moments.

- I loved how quickly Juliet gave Kate the code for the sonic fence after Sawyer called her Freckles.

- I still refuse to believe that Pierre Chang doesn't know that Miles is his son. There's something deeper going on with Chang and I hope we find out soon enough what it is.

- You would think that a group of people who had crashed on an island would be able to stay united because of their shared experience. But yet again we have another split. I'm guessing this is the 393421st time this has hapenned.

- If you know were going to (had?) shoot your son on the Island, wouldn't you try to stop him from going there. Yet, Eloise Hawking pushes her son into accepting Widmore's assignment. Every character on this show has an agenda, but we don't yet know what her's is.

- Eloise Hawking telling Penny that, for the first time, she doesn't know what's happening was quite chilling. Hawking is generally a very cold character and expressing her vulnerability in that scene made me feel that everyone is up against forces that are too evil too comprehend. Certainly far more evil than Ben, who increasingly seems like a pawn in the Island's game and not a mastermind.

- Over the past five years, I've taken it for granted that Lost will always be on the air. But there are only 20 episodes left. And congratulations to Lost on its 100th episode. It's really quite staggering that a show this thematically rich, daring and obtuse could last so long on network television.

Obama Less Popular Than You Think

Unintentionally revealing quote of the day from someone called Byron York (via Matthew Yglesias) who, I must confess, I'd never even heard of before this brouhaha:

On his 100th day in office, Barack Obama enjoys high job approval ratings, no matter what poll you consult. But if a new survey by the New York Times is accurate, the president and some of his policies are significantly less popular with white Americans than with black Americans, and his sky-high ratings among African-Americans make some of his positions appear a bit more popular overall than they actually are.

Hmmm. How can something be more popular than it actually is? What on earth could that possibly mean? The closest translation I can come to is: "If you exclude people who think Obama's great, then Americans' opinions of Obama are not as great as you previously thought." A less charitable interpretation would be: "If you exclude people who don't really count because of their skin color, then Obama is less popular than previously thought."

Similar twists of logic:

1. The presence of Lionel Messi, Xavi, Andres Iniesta and Yaya Toure make Barcelona appear a bit better than they actually are.

2. World War I and World War II make the German state seem a bit more war-prone than they actually were.

3. Closet racists masquerading as pundits in the American media make the discursive space in American politics more laughable than it actually is.

By the way, York responds to charges of racism here. I will let you be the judge of whether or not it is a convincing defense.

Links For Wednesday

Limited edition.

This story in the New York Times smashed all previous records of "number of people who emailed/Facebooked me the article, saying something to the effect of 'DUDE, you HAVE to put this on your blog'". You guys are so predictable, first in thinking that I would be interested in a couple of Karachi businessmen making dildos for a living, and second in sending me the same thing. Why don't you mix it up a bit? Come on, people, surprise me.

The Israelis are pissed. No, not at the Palestinians. At swine flu. Actually, they're not even pissed at swine flu. They're pissed at people who call it "swine flu". Their suggestion? Click here to find out. (Via Andrew Sullivan)

One of our readers (Karachi Khatmal, whose blog you can read here), alerted us to this absolutely amazing blog. It's written by a bit player in the IPL, and he has all sorts of gossip and insider tidbits to offer. The names will take a while to get used to, but desis will understand it by the second or third post.

Slate analyzes the Arlen Specter switch.

Steve Walt has a must-read post on Benjamin Netanyahu, and the fast-evaporating possibility of a viable two-state solution in the Middle East.

Juan Cole is not worried about Pakistan falling into the hands of the Taliban. I don't agree with everything he says -- and may elaborate in a future post -- but you should definitely read it.

Please, please, please check out the photograph linked to in this Paul Krugman post.

Speaking of business types, here's a really interesting discussion on management and corporate culture and business schools and what their role is. (Courtesy Adeel)

Have to run to class, so that's it for today.

Barcelona Fail To Unlock Chelsea, All To Play For At Stamford Bridge

Two hundred and forty. Two hundred and forty. No, that's not the number of players Chelsea had behind the ball (though it sure seemed like it). Actually, two hundred and forty is the number of days since the last time Barcelona failed to score in a game, home or away, in any competition. Two hundred and forty.

There are two basic ways to thinking about Chelsea's tactics today. The first is what I would call the "rationalist-instrumentalist" school. This school would say that sport is ultimately about winning, that you do what you have to within the rules of the game to come out on top, and that entertainment should complement, but not come at the price of, winning. Such a school would have no problem with Chelsea's display today, and would in fact encourage it.

The second school can be called the "purist romantic" school. This school would say it cheapens sport when you play it a certain way -- especially football. This school would have you believe that it's not just how successful you are, but how you are successful. People subscribing to this philosophy would be disgusted that a team costing hundreds of millions of pounds basically played like Greece in Euro 2004.

To be honest, I don't know where I stand in this debate. I'm obviously disappointed that Chelsea -- especially after Hiddink promised to attack -- had ten men behind the ball at all times, and played as if punting it down time and again to Drogba constituted their best chance to win. But I also understand that this was a first leg, that Chelsea know that they just have to nick one goal at the Bridge and keep Barca out, and they're through, and that at the end of the day, you're supposed to play for trophies, not photographs. Look, they came to the Camp Nou with a very specific plan, with a very specific goal, and executed it to perfection. They did their job.

I will say this though: it should never have come down to Chelsea's tactics. Barcelona played poorly. Ok, perhaps that's a bit harsh. Let's say Barcelona played well below average. Messi had a terrible game, misplacing passes and mistiming runs. I've never seen Messi not play well in a big game. This was the first time. Henry and Eto'o squandered a golden chance each -- the former wasted his by holding up the ball as defenders were backtracking (he is wont to do) -- and the latter by being a touch selfish on a two-on-two opening in the second half. Bojan missed an absolute sitter right in front of goal, and indeed deprived Messi of a simple tap-in, who had an even easier chance than Bojan did if he had just let it go. The passing wasn't as crisp, the movement not as decisive, and the final ball not as cutting as we are used to seeing. Some of the credit should go to Chelsea for that. But most of it was simply down to Barcelona's less than average performance.

I'll tell you who wasn't less than average though: Victor Valdes. He has been much maligned on many Barcelona forums -- including here -- but I have always maintained he's an excellent shot stopper (it's his positioning and judgment that's a problem). He could very well have saved Barca today with that save against Drogba. It was funny: as soon as the ball went to Marquez, and I saw him shaping up to pass it back through the middle instead of safely playing it out for the corner, I had a feeling he would miscue it into Drogba's path. I just had a feeling -- you get a type of sixth sense with these things when you watch a team week in week out. But well done to Valdes; without him, this tie would be over right now. Kudos to Iniesta and Xavi too, the two best players on the pitch from either team. And Yaya had a decent game, especially after a nervy start. But everyone else flattered to deceive, including the entire Chelsea team. Essien? Lampard? Ballack? Honestly didn't see them the whole game, except for one or two vicious tackles from Ballack.

A note on Dani Alves and Drogba: I'm actually quite speechless at their antics. Dani Alves does this every week, and someone's got to put a stop to it. I'm sorry, but it reflects badly on the entire team and the Barcelona culture, especially when everyone else plays the Right Way. Guardiola should give him a talking to. And Drogba is as bad. It cheapens the sport in general, and it frustrates the living daylights of the opposition, as well as fans watching at home. Quite disgraceful to be honest.

So onwards we march. Barcelona play at the Bernabeu this Saturday, and should expect similar roughing up. Then it's up to London next Wednesday. It remains to be seen if Chelsea will play the same way. There's always a risk that if they open up, they get scythed to pieces on the other end. And to be honest, they weren't that far off from being scythed to pieces today: it was only around the 35 minute mark, when the heavy and late challenges (and the attendant yellow cards) came that Barca lost their flow and rhthym. And Barcelona looked quite dangerous in the last ten minutes, when they adopted a more direct approach. But they'll be ruing their missed chances, no doubt.

Ultimately, the most interesting aspect of a 0-0 first leg is that neither team feels particularly comfortable in the interim seven days. I think Chelsea are happier than Barcelona at the moment, to be sure, but I don't think Barcelona are plagued by the self-doubt that they were a year ago in the same position (against United, after a similiar story in a park-the-bus first leg). So it's all to play for next week. Let's hope we actually get a game then.

UPDATE: Quick thoughts on the penalty shout. Was it a penalty? Probably. But the ref's not going to see a pull on the shirt from that distance at that angle. You can't blame them, and it wasn't an especially egregious foul. It was just bad enough to get Henry away from a shooting position, and so was successful in its aim even if it was undesirable. Kind of like Chelsea's tactics the whole night.

UPDATE II: Another point I forgot to make was the relationship between Chelsea's tactics on the one hand, and the Premier League's supposed supremacy on the other. I have a simple question: if the premiership is all that, why do it's best representatives come to the Camp Nou every year and put 10 guys behind the ball? Do they not have the self-belief and courage to play against us the way they play against each other? Would Chelsea have ever played like that against United or Liverpool, home or away, League or Cup? And if not, what does it say about the purported gulf in class between the leagues?

UPDATE III: Quote of the day, from Sid Lowe's review of the Spanish press:

"What would you take on a desert island?" asks Carles Rupiérez. "You could always go to Didier Drogba for suggestions. He had 89 minutes to think about it last night, 89 minutes to choose a book, a CD, to go for a mobile phone or a Swiss army knife or a lighter to make fires. Every now and then Piqué or Márquez visited him as they went to collect some strange object his team-mates occasionally sent his way, always by air mail."

UPDATE IV: Just got done watching the Arsenal-United game (except for the first twenty minutes of the second half). Man, I feel stupid picking Arsenal. Whether it was because I have an affinity for Arsenal's Diet Barcelona style, or whether I felt sorry for AKS and Nikhil, or whether I just wanted to pick against Ronaldo's team just because (rooting against Real next year will be even more fun), or whether I just wanted to hear the end of the constant quintuple/quadruple chit-chat on the Guardian blogs from annoying United supporters, it's clear I went with what I wanted to see rather than what I would see. Arsenal didn't even arrive on the pitch until the 25th minute, by which time they really should have been three down if it weren't for Almunia.

In general, there was a massive gulf in quality between the sides, at least based on today's evidence. I don't know if time (6 days) and a change in location (from OT to the Emirates) is really going to change that. United simply looked a better team -- much better -- and I've rarely seen a game in the latter stages of the Champions League where one team simply doesn't seem to cut it.

Am I allowed to revisit my pick? Ah, nevermind.

Dear Americans, Please Don't Make Nawaz Sharif Your Latest Friend -- For His Sake

Oh God, it's happening again.

It happened to Dear Leader Pervez Musharraf, an otherwise hugely popular president who, under the weight of his alliance with the U.S. and his panga with Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, had to leave office. It has happened to Asif Zardari, who people forget was quite popular about twelve months ago. It would have happened to his late wife had she managed to stay alive. And, make no mistake, it will happen to Nawaz Sharif.

There are rumblings within the U.S. that the Lion of Punjab, Champion of the Judiciary, Savior of Democracy, and Hero to the People is being considered a worthy ally in the fight against the Taliban. Two basic facts are pushing this line of thinking. First, the Zardari government has not managed to fight this war with any great efficacy. Second, the old "only Nixon could go to China" argument; the idea that what is key to making difficult choices is the fact that the person or institution making them cannot be outflanked or be considered traitors. Thus, it is no coincidence that the senior leadership of Pakistan's military and the BJP were the only actors that embarked on a meaningful peace process between India and Pakistan: both had street cred.

Now, I am sympathetic to both ideas, even if the logical conclusion of them ("Nawaz Sharif will be a worthy ally in the fight against the Taliban") is a little iffy to me. Be that as it may, I have one message to the U.S:

PLEASE DON'T DO THIS IN PUBLIC.

You would have thought that by now, the Americans would have learned that anyone they designate as an ally becomes instantly unpopular in Pakistan. Clearly, you would be wrong. Even if they are correct in thinking that Nawaz Sharif can fight this war, they should not say so. They should not send representatives to his Raiwind estate. They should not mention him in press conferences other than to castigate him, and they should stop leaking these ideas to the New York Times. Use email, webcams and teleconferences; do whatever you want behind closed doors, but dear Lord don't do this in public.

I promise you, Nawaz Sharif may be ridiculously popular right now, but there's a very easy way to change all that: have America tell the world -- and Pakistan -- that they like the dude.

Don't do it, America. I beg you, don't do it. Don't destroy the career of another Pakistani public figure.

We Meet Again: Barcelona, Chelsea Play For Champions League Final Spot; Sir Alex Ferguson, Arsene Wenger Renew Acquaintances

Before I go any further, I beseech you to watch this video. With the volume up. And if you're not pumped up by the end of it, there's something wrong with you.



By the way, Messi was eighteen at the time. No, seriously.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

So, this is it. Barcelona and Chelsea. Again. Some of the familiar faces are no longer present (Mourinho, Rijkaard, Ronaldinho), and some of them have switched sides (Deco, Gudjohnsen), but one thing hasn't changed: this is going to be a fucking blast.

Since I don't read Spanish or Catalan, I get all my football coverage in the English press. Doing so, I have come across a few myths recently. I would like to dispel these myths systematically here.

Myth number one: Barcelona's defence is weak

It is true that none of Barcelona's back four would challenge for a World XI, except for Dani Alves, who would do so for reasons other than his defence. It is also true that Victor Valdes is a clumsy keeper, whose positioning is always jittery.

However...

Such an analysis misses a few key points. First, Barcelona take the approach that the best defence is attack. More specifically, Barcelona take the following approach to defence: you can't score if you don't have the ball. They regularly keep possession in excess of 55%, even against top teams (at times against Bayern and Lyon, those numbers reached 70%). When you do finally win the ball off them, they hound you until they get it back, throwing three players at the ball at all times, even (especially?) in the opponent's half.

Second, Pique is no joke. He is now easily Barca's best defender. What Man United were doing when they gave him up is beyond me. But no, you're right: Jonny Evans is an adequate replacement.

Third, Yaya Toure is effectively another defender, sitting deep and snuffing out any and all attacks. There are not many defensive midfielders who have done a better job than him this year; there are fewer still who can get an attack started both with an incisive pass or run.

And if all that isn't enough to convince you, please understand (a) that Barca have the best defensive record in La Liga, and (b) have the same goals-allowed-per-game average as Chelsea and Liverpool, those bastions of organization, in the Champions League,

Myth number two: Barcelona have not been challenged yet, either in Spain or in Europe

This one is especially funny. We heard it before the first run of Sevilla-Valencia-Real-Villareal games (consecutively) in December. That tidy run, featuring two at home and two away, finished with twelve points, and 11-1 on aggregate. Then we heard it before the first knockout stage in Europe. Of course, Lyon were held in France, before being destroyed in about thirty five minutes of orgasmic football at the Camp Nou. Then we were told Lyon did not represent a real test, and that the Bundesliga-leading (at the time) Bayern, who had slotted twelve goals past Sporting, would be more competitive. Well, they weren't saying that by half-time in the first leg, by which time it was 4-0 and really should have been six or seven.

Now we're being told that Bayern were overrated, and that La Liga is a weak league (based on Real losing to Liverpool). Such tortured and twisted logic is not worth considering. It is true that teams 1-4 are probably stronger in England than in Spain. But teams 5-20 are significantly stronger in Spain than in England, and Barca have brushed them all aside.

Dismiss our competition all you want. No skin off our back.

Myth number three: Eto'o, Messi, and Henry have inflated numbers because they are given too much space in La Liga

Laughable. Most of their goals actually come from being given too little space, rather than the opposite. Opponents try to get right up to them, leaving them vulnerable to quick bursts of pace and one-twos in and around the box with each other and guys like Xavi and Iniesta. I would venture to suggest that less than 5% of any of their goals come from outside the penalty area, so the question of being given too much space doesn't even come about.

Myth number four: The story of Barcelona's beautiful and dominant play is an old one, and has a familiar ending -- that of losing to an English side

It is true that Barcelona's last three defeats in the Champions League knockout stages have come to English teams (1-0 on aggregate to Man United in the semis last year, 2-2 on away goals to Liverpool the year before, and 5-4 to Chelsea in 2005). But the only people claiming that this is a similar Barcelona team are people who've not actually watched them play this year. Everything -- the pace of passing, the spacing, the understanding between players, the effort, the work rate, the chasing down of opposition defenders, the relentless wave-after-wave form of attack -- is different. Everything. This is not your elder brother's Barcelona team. It is your father's.

The dismissing of these myths does not necessarily mean that Barcelona will win. Far from it. But it is important to note how Chelsea might win. Chelsea will not win banking on the fact that Barca are overrated, or that their defence is terrible, or anything ludicrous like that. But here's how they can win:

1. Make it an alley-fight

A common mistake that teams have made this year against Barca is to sit back and hope to play on the counter. This is the most obvious and traditional of strategies against attacking opponents, but it fails miserably because you never actually get the ball playing this way. I'm not exaggerating -- you simply don't see the ball outside your own half this way.

The only teams that have given Barca trouble all year are ones that get in their face, that make it a physical contest, that are not afraid of picking up a multitude of yellows, and that try to rough up the midfield. Fortunately for Chelsea, they have the personnel to do just that, especially in Essien and Ballack. They make this a boxing or rugby match, and they become the favorites, because Barcelona, for all their versatility, cannot play that style.

2. Take Xavi out of the game

Messi is the best player in the world, Iniesta is the man most in form, Eto'o is the top goal-scorer in La Liga, Puyol is the heart and soul, Yaya Toure is the rock, but Xavi...Xavi is the fulcrum. It is actually quite astonishing to watch Barcelona play either without Xavi or with a Xavi who's been neutralized (for example, against Valencia today). They simply look a different side. If Hiddink has a brain, which he does, he will use Essien to man-mark Xavi a la Steven Gerrard at Anfield a few weeks ago, and hope the rest of the midfield can keep up with the rest. Xavi is that important.

3. Set pieces, set pieces, set pieces

Chelsea are very good in the air. Barca are quite terrible. The thought of Drogba attacking a cross with Valdes coming out to punch makes me shiver in my seat. In fact, I'm willing to wage that more than half of Chelsea's goals in this tie will come from free kicks or corners. And that's a pretty safe bet.

4. Hope the schedule catches up with Barcelona

Again, Barcelona are playing something like eight games in twenty days, all of them deathly crucial. Sandwiched in between the Chelsea games is a visit to the Bernabeu. Today, Barcelona visited the Mestalla and were quite lucky to walk away with a 2-2 draw with Valencia. Last week, they played twice in La Liga, both difficult games. At some point, these games are going to catch up with the squad, which doesn't have the depth of the English squads. Barca have a top-class XI, and two or three decent (not spectacular) replacements for their midfield. Bojan is the only guy who can adequately sub for anyone up front, and Guardiola simply doesn't trust him as much as Rijkaard did. And that's it. Barca effectively have a squad of 15, not 22 the way the English teams do.

I will say this though: while it is true that Barcelona have not played a team quite like Chelsea this year (physically dominant, set piece experts), it is also true that Chelsea have not played a team quite like Barcelona. You know how Champions League ties are meant to be played over 180 minutes? Well Barca's last two have basically been decided in 45 -- and if you don't believe me, you can ask Franck Ribery, who was quite literally reduced to tears after the Camp Nou demolition. At times, it looks like Barca simply switch a gear, and kill a game before the opponent even knows what's happened. And the quality of football they have played this year is something that Italian poets and Chinese philosophers will write pages upon pages about for posterity's sake.

My head wants to go with Chelsea, but my heart (and not just the Barca-fan part of my heart) says Barcelona. You just get the feeling watching them that they are a team of destiny; where things have fallen in place for one transient period; when the stars and planets have aligned, when Messi has remained fit, and Deco and Ronaldinho aren't around to wreak havoc in the dressing room; when Guardiola has worked magic beyond anyone's expectations in his first year; where each game has represented a tribute to the footballing gods, each an aesthetic and sporting symphony in its own right, each player partaking in this wonderful experience that we shall all remember for the rest of our lives, so that we can all tell our grandchildren: I was there when Messi and Xavi and Iniesta and Eto'o reduced opponents to tears and brought untold joy to the world, and indeed changed it in their own indomitable way; I was there when all excellence -- and not just the concept of excellence, but the very form of excellence, the way Plato meant the term -- found itself embodied in the Blaugrana; and perfection, that ever unattainable of goals for humankind, was just once flirted with, and brought within touching distance of us all, close enough so that we actually felt its presence, the same way Abelard and Heloise felt the other's presence, even if it was only in their imagination. You just get the feeling.

Prediction: Barcelona to go through 4-2 on aggregate.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Oh, yeah, the other one. Well, I'll leave it to our loyal Arse and United fans to fill up the comments section with their thoughts and prognostications. Without pretending to know a whole hell of a lot about this tie, I just have a few questions:

1. Exactly how many first-choice Arsenal players are actually going to be fit? Isn't, like, half their team injured or something?
2. Is that lazy-30-million-pound-waste-of-space actually going to play in a tie that will be as fast paced as this one will invariably be?
3. How long before Wenger and Ferguson make us all be thankful this is no longer 2003?
4. If United go out, is this the last time we see Ronaldo and Tevez in United colors in Europe?
5. Don't you feel like it's written in the stars that Arsenal and Barcelona advance to the final, and Henry scores in a 1-0 win?

Prediction: Arsenal to go through on away goals, after tie is drawn 3-3.

UPDATE: Some additional reading material for you guys, starting with this piece on the Arsenal-United rivalry:

Vieira called United his ­"favourite enemy". In his first season in ­England he witnessed Ian Wright having to be restrained from thumping Peter ­Schmeichel by police and a subsequent ding-dong in the tunnel. His most maddening flare-up occurred in 2003 when he was sent off at Old Trafford for aiming a retaliatory kick at Ruud van Nistelrooy, who had stamped on him. Despite the lack of contact the Dutchman writhed around until the red card was ­flourished. "Personally, I can't stand the sight of Van Nistelrooy," wrote Vieira in his auto­biography. "Everything about him annoys me. He's always ­complaining, whingeing. The man is a cheat and a coward. Everyone thinks he's a nice guy but in fact he's a son of a bitch."

Indeed. Meanwhile, a number of ejaculatory pieces on Barca from the English press. Sid Lowe, as always, is brilliant. This piece in the Times is an awesome profile of Lionel Messi. And here's a piece on how Chelsea might try to stop him.

The Taliban Problem

You may forgive the world and Hillary Clinton -- I know: same thing, right? -- if they betray more than mere concern at the status quo in Pakistan. The threat from the Taliban and their various local surrogates is growing, not abating, and there seems to be little that state institutions can do anything about it. What follows is my best attempt to think through the problem, how we got here, and the key concerns as we try to get out of this predicament.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

There have been three basic components of the growing Taliban problem: the political, the military, and the geopolitical.

The political problem has centered on a lack of willingness of Pakistan's political elite, as well as wide swathes of the public, to clearly and unequivocally identify the Taliban as a force to be opposed. This is for a number of reasons. First, the rampant anti-Americanism that runs through the country has made it easy for the Taliban to be conceived of as the lesser of two evils -- the enemy of my enemy, if you will. Second, given the failure of Pakistan's traditional governing structures -- the military on the one hand, and feudal and business-oriented politicians on the other -- to actually deal with the problems of the average Pakistani, there has been a growing sympathy to the idea of "Islamic democracy", whereby the state is run on religious principles. Since everything else has failed, the logic goes, why not give this a try? By this logic, only the methods, and not the goals, of the Taliban are truly problematic. Third, the Taliban are often looked upon as the "second-movers" in this war, whereby they merely responded to the aggression showed by the U.S. in Afghanistan and former President Musharraf in Waziristan. Notwithstanding the empirical questionability of each of these claims, they make for a firm foundation of countenancing the Taliban, if not outrightly supporting them.

The military problem centers on the fact that Pakistan's armed forces are not terribly well-equipped to fighting wars, especially counter-insurgency wars against a primarily Pashtun enemy. Pakistan's military has lost every war it has launched or, at the very least, it has not won any of them. More to the point, the military is not trained to fight counterinsurgency wars on its own soil. It is trained to fight the Indian military across the plains of Punjab. Finally, given the Pashtuns are the second-largest contingent in terms of ethnicity in the Pakistan military -- they are seriously overrepresented in this regard -- the questions of morale and willingness amongst the troops are serious ones, keeping in mind that the Taliban is primarily a Pashtun movement. More generally, militaries which have been excessively involved in a country's politics are sometimes unable to perform their primary role due to their adopted power positions; the erosion of Argentina's military in the 1970s and 1980s is a good example.

Finally, the geopolitical problem centers on two key actors: the United States and India. Contrary to what some analysts believe, the Pakistan military establishment does not calibrate its actions to the expectation that the Americans will never leave the region. They function on the assumption that the Americans will leave, inevitably so, and soon. This assumption is born out of the partnership in the 1980s against the Soviets in Afghanistan, when at the conclusion of the conflict, the U.S. left Pakistan to deal with the fallout of (a) an effectively open border with Afghanistan, and (b) many angry, unemployed, well-trained, and well-armed people who believed they were fighting Allah's war against godlessness. What this expectation of an American exit does is ensure that the military establishment in Pakistan may not wholeheartedly be behind the conflict against all elements of the Taliban. Why fight them today when they could come in handy tomorrow, once the Americans have left? This line of thinking is exacerbated by the perception of encirclement driven by India's close relationship to the Karzai government, and the growing strategic partnership between the two. Finally, America's actions themselves -- whether they be the drone attacks brought upon by the Bush/Mush partnership, and expanded considerably by the Obama/HaqqaniZardari partnership, or the promise of an even greater ground force by Obama in neighboring Afghanistan -- are effectively pushing the Taliban east, closer and closer to the heart of Pakistan.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

These factors in conjunction have meant that the Taliban, far from being on the run, are spreading their tentacles further and further into the settled areas of Pakistan. Having moved in to Swat at the end of last year, they have now spread into Buner and are threatening the neighboring district of Shangla (reports suggest that they are evacuating Buner, though this may merely be a tactical ploy and not part of a longer-term strategic retreat). The Taliban now effectively control important districts within one hundred miles of Islamabad, the federal capital. They have made inroads in Punjab, the country's most populous and politically important province. And they are treading water in Karachi, the country's business, commercial, and financial hub, its port city, and its most (read: only) multi-ethnic city, where a substanstial Pashtun population resides (which would allow them ease in remaining undetected).

What do such developments mean for average Pakistanis and their prospects? First, they mean that local customs and leadership will be done away with -- and when I say the leadership is done away with, I really do mean it literally. Second, business and "usual" economic activity grinds to a halt; the only template we have, that of Afghanistan in the 1990s, does not hold a great deal of promise on this front. Third, women can expect to be subjected to even greater violations of basic human rights than they currently are deprived of in Pakistan. Fourth, all social and cultural freedoms -- such as those of speech, art, religion -- will be a thing of the past. It is important to note that these are not idle threats; they are based upon the basic facts upon the Taliban's stated worldview, and their past behavior. Everyone and their grandmother saw the infamous video of a teenaged girl being beaten in public by the Taliban, but that is the mere tip of the iceberg. By way of example, have you seen this photograph of a butcher being publicly beaten for (allegedly) not following correct Islamic law in cutting meat?

In short, if Pakistan wants to do anything about the Taliban, now might be a good time.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

There are small but substantive encouraging signs that Pakistan and its public may finally be waking up to the threat. Coverage in the local media has lately been almost exclusively focused on the Taliban's bold ventures into Pakistan's territory, and their challenge to the writ of the state. Important figures, such as Fazlur Rehman (the leader of JUI, a religious party with a historical foothold in the areas currently overrun by the Taliban) and Nawaz Sharif (the country's most popular politician, a center-right figure who has hitherto shown little inclination to speak against the Taliban) have begun to publicly speak of the dangers that Pakistan faces. Both the head of the military and the Prime Minister have warned that the Taliban will not be allowed to indefinitely challenge the state.

More importantly -- and this is just a hunch, which will remain unconfirmed thanks to the absence of a Pakistani Nate Silver -- the tide of public opinion may finally be turning, from equivocation to outrage. I had a suspicion immediately after the attack on Sri Lankan cricketers last month that a turning point might have been reached but, truth be told, I was too afraid of saying so out of a fear of being wrong (again). Cricket was and is the one thing that unites this deeply divided country, and the Sri Lankans were the only international team that braved to tour the country amidst the spectre of security threats. Their targetting was an affront to all Pakistanis. The infamous girl-being-flogged video followed soon after, which were in turn followed by greater Taliban incisions in Pakistani territory. And I haven't even mentioned the as-yet unyielding campaign of violence against civilians and security forces. Given these events in the last eight weeks, it would not be surprising to find people more cognizant of the Taliban threat.

Despite these purported changes, however, the military -- as always in Pakistan -- holds the key. There can be no more coddling of Taliban elements for geostrategic reasons. India ceased to be a threat to Pakistan on May 28, 1998. Even if India is friendly with Afghanistan, and even if Pakistan's military establishment perceives encirclement, care must be taken to carefully evaluate the real threat, or lack thereof, that India poses to Pakistan's existential security. This is not 1914, and we are not Germany. Simply put, Pakistan's nuclear arsenal guarantees that India cannot overrun Pakistan, with or without an alliance with Afghanistan. The nuclear guarantee, unfortunately, does not extend to the prospect of the Taliban overrunning Pakistan. The military establishment must decide which is more likely.

Of course, this still ignores the very real possibility that even if Pakistan's military is willing to tackle the Taliban, it is not able to. And this is the scariest possibility of all. Consider, for instance, this editorial from the Daily Times the other day:

Finally, it is the army that has to step forward and face the Taliban. It has baulked so far because of adverse public opinion and an equally lethal media tilt. But now that the politicians are waking up to the danger and the media is increasingly disabused, the army must end its India-driven strategy and try to save Pakistan from becoming the caliphate of Al Qaeda.

Such a position assumes that public opinion and the vascillating political leadership is holding the military back (which is true). But it elides the possibility that the military simply cannot do the job. Recall that from 2004 to 2006, the military under Musharraf went into Waziristan and came out with its tail between its legs. What makes us so sure that Swat, Malakand, and (gulp) Punjab will be so different?
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Pakistanis of all stripes -- from the media to the public, from the political leadership to the military -- must unite in the face of this threat. It is time for action, not words. It is clear that concessions and negotiations do not work the Taliban. They are not reliable partners, and they have made a living on reneging on every single agreement they have made with the government (whether it be Musharraf's or Zardari's). Fortunately, they may just have overplayed their hand in recent weeks, and done the hard job of uniting Pakistanis for us. It is now up to the institutions of the state -- the civilians in parliament, and the men entrusted to protect our territorial integrity -- to do their job, and save Pakistanis from this madness.

We must all hang together or most assuredly we will all hang separately.

Yet Another Imran Khan Post

Regular readers will be aware (probably because we have told them so many times) that none of the contributers hold Imran Khan - to put it mildly - in very high regard. Doing another post on Imran Khan may be a bit pointless but no matter how many times you beat this horse it never seems to die. My reaction to this article he wrote dispelling 'myths' about terrorism, militancy and Pakistan was similar to Imran's reaction whenever he was hit for a boundary: a red mist descended and I felt nothing but pure rage.

Lets take it point by point.

Since no Pakistani was involved in 9/11 and the CIA-trained Al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan, how does it concern us?

Imran means this as a rhetorical question as it is obvious to him that Pakistan was in no way involved in 9/11. To believe that you have to ignore that:

1) Ammar-ul-Baluchi, who was born in Pakistan, is Khalid Sheikh Muhammed's nephew and was his chief operative in Pakistan did not send $12,000 to the 9/11 hijackers.

2) Omar Sheikh, who was released from an Indian prison after terrorists hijacked a plane and was living in Islamabad at the time, did not send $100,000 to Mohammed Atta.

3) Pakistan was, after Afghanistan, the most important training ground for Islamic militants.

It is only when General Musharraf buckled under US pressure and sent our troops into Waziristan in late 2003-early 2004 that Pakistan became a war zone.

Why wasn't Pakistan a war zone before then? Might it be because before 9/11 the Pakistani government had to incentive to try and stop the same terrorists from jumping across the border and making Kashmir a war zone?

To fully understand Musharraf’s treachery against Pakistan, it is important to know that almost a 100,000 troops were sent into the tribal areas to target around 1000 suspected Al-Qaeda members

This is so disingenous that I refuse to believe that Imran Khan is not willingly lying here. While it might be true that there were only 1000 Al-Qaeda members in the tribal areas surely he knows that the troops were also fighting thousands of Taliban members. When it comes to dealing with those that are responsible for challenging the writ of the state and carrying out attacks throughout the country, the distinction between the two groups is entirely meaningless.

The most shameful aspect of the lie that this is our war is that the government keeps begging the US for more dollars stating that the war is costing the country more than the money it is receiving from the US. If it is our war, then fighting it should not be dependent on funds and material flowing from the US.

This is another bit of stupidity. Both the Pakistan and US governments want to defeat Islamic militants, just as both the Allies and the US wanted to defeat the Axis powers in the Second World War. Did taking money from the US mean that Britian was not at war with Germany?

In fact, the reason the Taliban succeeded where the Mujahideen warlords failed, was because they established the rule of law - the Afghans had had enough of the power struggle between the warlord factions that had destroyed what remained of the country’s infrastructure and killed over 100,000 people.

This is where I think Imran Khan skips stupidity and ignorance and moves straight through to evil. Even previously he has made clear his admiration for the way the Taliban were able to establish the rule of law in Afghanistan. When that rule of law includes massacres of Uzbek villagers, rape of women and execution of boys, there really isn't much to applaud.

The reason was that while there was rule of law (based on the traditional jirga system) in the tribal areas, the people of Swat had been deprived of easy access to justice ever since the traditional legal system premised on Qazi courts was replaced by Pakistani laws and judicial system, first introduced in 1974. The murder rate shot up from 10 per year in 1974 to almost 700 per year by 1977, when there was an uprising against the Pakistani justice system.

Later in the article, Imran Khan comes out in favour of the jirga system, who certainly provide speedy justice - at least to those who want to marry minor girls and bury women alive. He might want to explain why he thought it was so important that the rest of Pakistan have the "Pakistani laws and judicial sytem" that are guarantueed by our constitution that he boycotted the last elections because we weren't getting them. Yet he doesn't believe that the tribal areas and Swat should come under this system.

Myth No. 4: That the next terrorist attack on the US will come from the tribal areas.

First, there is an assumption, based purely on conjecture, that the Al Qaeda leadership is in the tribal areas. In fact, this leadership could well be in the 70 % of Afghan territory that the Taliban control. More importantly, given the growing radicalisation of the educated Muslim youth - in major part because of the continuing US partiality towards Israeli occupation of Palestinian land - why can it not follow that the next terrorist attack on the US could come either from the Middle East or from the marginalised and radicalised Muslims of Europe, motivated by perceived injustices to Islam and the Muslim World.

Imran is arguing with a straw man here. No one is saying that it is 100% certain that the next attack on the US will come from the tribal areas. What they are saying is that is by far the most likely to originate from here given the sheer number of militants in this area, the relative free hand they have in operating there and the sanctuary it affords them. And even if the next attack is carried out by Muslims from Europe there is an excellent chance that they will have recieved training in Pakistan, as many of the 7/7 attackers did.

If Talibanisation is growing in Pakistan because of the covert support of ISI in the tribal areas, then surely the growing Taliban control over Afghanistan (70 % of the territory) must be with NATO’s complicity?

This again is dishonesty masked as stupidity. The ISI has a long relationship with these groups, going back to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and continuing through the 1990s when they were used as an instrument of the government's Kashmir policy. Now, before you feel the need to point out that the US supported militants in the 1980s, keep in mind that the US no longer has any reason, both ideological and political, to support Islamic militants while the ISI still has both.

Ideas should be fought with counter ideas and dialogue, not guns.

This may be the most ridiculous statement ever uttered by Imran Khan. Advice that should be given to the militants is instead proferred to the government. The chutzpah of it is too much to bear. Couldn't he tell his Taliban pals that they should go about promoting their idelogy by convincing us of its merits rather than advertising it through suicide bombings, beheadings and floggings?

Links For Thursday

Bloody hell, there's a bunch of links backed up. Settle back and prepare to procrastinate.

Hey, Pakistan's playing cricket again! And we actually won! Here's Osman's first line on our shaky run-chase:

It really didn't matter that Pakistan chased down their target tonight with all the assurance of a one-legged man roller-skating in quicksand with his hands tied behind his back.

I've subscribed to the feed for the series, but the games start at something like five in the morning for me, so I don't know why I bothered paying.

Speaking of cricket, what do you get when you combine Brian Lara and Barack Obama? My hero-worship sensors exploding due to overheating, that's what. (Courtesy Rishad)

Dear crazy right-wingers who're losing their shit because Obama shook Chavez's hand: settle down.

Here's some bad journalism on the seedy underbelly of Dubai (courtesy Sameer). And here's some worse journalism masquerading as a retort.

Glenn Greenwald, funny man.

Something about Indian socialist politicians and using donkeys as a mode of transportation (courtesy Nikhil). Make sure to read the last sentence.

Without endorsing all of the ideas encapsulated therein, this is a great piece from Mosharraf. If you're looking for some optimism, he'll give you some.

A couple of pieces on the recently released torture memos and the fallout. Here's one from Andrew Sullivan and here's one from Hilzoy.

A really chilling post from Juan Cole on some goings-on in the West Bank -- the putatively Palestinian bit of it.

Lindsey has a hilarious post on the things people say at the University of Chicago.

Speaking of higher education, Freakonomics tackles the causes of the astronomical rise in the cost of going to college in the U.S.

The Rethink Afghanistan people have released the third part of their documentary. Here's the trailer.

And finally, Pep Guardiola is bringing the hammer down on Barcelona, not allowing them to watch the Barcelona Open, where famous Real Madrid fan Rafa Nadal is the star attraction. It's amazing the extent to which the legacies of Ronaldinho and Deco have forced Pep to basically treat the team like schoolkids. No public appearances for 48 hours before any game? A bit draconian, no?

Taliban In Karachi

I have always viewed the 'Taliban in Karachi' stories with a great deal of cynicism. I still feel that the MQM is using them as political cover to strengthen their base - I'm not saying the threat to parts of Pakistan from the Taliban isn't real, but that Karachi isn't one of those places. But perhaps I've been unfair in the past because I can no longer deny that there is some truth to these stories.

I just finished a conversation with a peon Jawaid at the office who had come to ask us (we were having a partners meeting) if we had any contacts in the MQM and the media. Jawaid is a Christian and lives in a predominantly Christian neighbourhood in Surjani Town and apparently last night a few armed, Pashtun men broke into their small local church, vandalised it and chalked Quranic text on the walls. They then informed the people of the area that they had thirty days to convert to Islam.

This is not the first incident of its kind that I've heard of, but the first where a direct witness has come forth.

A couple of weeks ago my brother told me that his former math teacher, Sir Victor, and his entire family suddenly left the country and sought asylum in Australia (or Canada, I can't remember) after armed men gave them three options by armed men: convert, leave or die. Sir Victor's family had lived in Pakistan since before partition, they've all left.

Jawaid is a poor man and lives in a poor neighbourhood in Surjani Town. Victor wasn't a poor man (taught at a top Karachi school, gave tuitions) and lived in a middle class neighbourhood in Saddar. Victor could leave. Javaid can't.

Update:

Dawn and The News report the same incident today (can't find the Dawn link on their website), however as per their reports violence erupted after Taliban Zindabad had been chalked on the church's outer wall. There was no mention of the church being ransacked or the area residents being told to convert. So, maybe Jawaid was exaggerating, or maybe the papers are playing it safe. No matter though, there's no denying that there's added pressure on minorities.

Why Can't Nawaz Sharif Criticize The Taliban In The Pakistani Press?

Via this Daily Times report, I saw this interview of Nawaz Sharif in USA Today. Here's what he had to say:

LAHORE, Pakistan — Pakistan's top opposition leader, former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, expressed concern Monday about a controversial peace deal with Islamist militants but backed off calls he made last month for a "revolution" to topple the government.

Unable to contain an insurgency through military force, Pakistan's government agreed last week to let Taliban militants impose sharia, or Islamic law, in the northern Swat Valley region. Sharif said militants there are trying to export their particularly harsh version of sharia, in which the hands of thieves are amputated, women are forbidden from going outside, and adulterers are stoned to death.

"How do we deal with the situation in Swat?" Sharif asked in an hour-long interview with USA TODAY at his palatial home on the outskirts of this city. "They are now threatening to get out of Swat and take other areas into their custody. So we've got to avoid that situation."

I wholeheartedly agree. Thing is, though, that we never see Mr. Sharif actually say anything like this in the local press, in Urdu, to a mass audience. Why not?

Look, I really don't want to be interpreted as picking on Nawaz Sharif. The reason why I want him to act a certain way is because I realize how important and how popular he is. He is very much a stakeholder in the politics of Pakistan -- unlike Mr. Imran "one seat in three elections" Khan.

Nawaz Sharif is very important to the future of Pakistan. His opinions matter, because he matters -- to tens of millions of people. So why can't he do the responsible thing and denounce the Taliban, their goals, and their methods in a forum where every Pakistani will hear him loud and clear?

The French Will Protest Anything

Thanks to reader Asad for sending this picture along:


Most non-French speakers will be able to deduce the words on the banner, but for those who can't, it says: "Against the new version of Facebook". Yes, Facebook is the new ancien regime. Well played, Frenchies. Well played.

I have one question, and I mean this in all seriousness: don't they have anything better to do? Like, you know, their jobs? Or maybe logging on to Facebook?

Photograph of the Day

From: Islamabad Metblogs

Health Minister Ijaz Ahmed Jakhrani being waited on by a flunky with a paper fun. Metblogs thinks its because of loadshedding. I'm guessing he's on a power trip and has a uniform fetish.

Courtesy: Metblogs says its either from Daily Times or Aajkal but I haven't been able to find it.

Qazi Hussain Ahmed Argues Completely Illogically, Rewrites History, Badly Needs To Be Introduced To Shift+F7

This is too easy, but I'm going to do it anyway: picking on Qazi Hussain Ahmed's latest op-ed in The News, titled "Islamisation: cure of all evils". Let's get started.

First, our dear old sage argues that in order to secure Pakistan against a movement that aims to introduce strict Islamic law in the country, we should introduce strict Islamic law in the country.

Complete Islamisation of Pakistan has been the genuine and long-standing demand of the overwhelming majority of Pakistanis. Not only that, it is also the appropriate answer to the lurking fears of Talibanisation, growing rapidly with every passing day, as a natural response to the suppression of this public demand at the state level.

Then, he gets a number of basic facts wrong about the country's political history.

Those who believe that Pakistan can be secularised by separating the Islamic system from its state are suffering from a serious fallacy. What they conveniently ignore in their bias against Islamic codes is that Islamisation of the country is not just the demand of what they call some extremists but is the strong desire of an overwhelming majority of the people, millions of whom are ready to sacrifice their lives to achieve this objective, like those who laid down their lives in the Pakistan Movement.

That's curious, because one would imagine that if Islamization of the country was a "strong desire of an overwhelming majority of the people, millions of whom are ready to sacrifice their lives to achieve this objective", then, you know, they might have actually voted for political parties espousing these objectives every now and then. The evidence, however, seems to suggest that Islamic parties traditionally struggle to gain more than 10% of the vote, at best. Maybe Qazi saab subscribes to good ol' "silent majority" rule of politics, except in this case, they're so silent that you have to have overdosed on LSD to hear them.

Next, Qazi saab tells us the whys and hows of Pakistan's creation...

The entire debate that Islam should not be the system of governance in the country was the thinking paradigm of those who are mental slaves to the western culture and averse to the Islamic ideology. This is an undeniable fact that Muslims from the length and breadth of the subcontinent strove for the creation of Pakistan and rendered matchless sacrifices in human history.

...without being explicit about the fact that the founder of the Jamaat-e-Islami actually opposed the creation of Pakistan. No worries though; he can't be expected to be a great thinker and have all his facts straight.

Finally, I would advise the dear Qazi saab to hire a better translator -- or, at the very least, hire someone who can use a thesaurus. The word "slave", or its variants, were used six times; "master" and its variants seven; and "elite" or "establishment" four times. Dude, it's shift+F7. Not that complicated.

Shouldn't stop you guys from reading ir though. In fact, I highly encourage you to do so. Who doesn't need a good laugh with their morning tea?

Top Ten Non-Fiction Books (Non-Academic)

As promised, I am running through three top ten lists: my favorite academic books, my favorite non-fiction books from outside academia, and my favorite fiction books. Yesterday, I went through my favorite academic books; you can click here to see that list. For the fiction list, you will have to wait a day or two.

Anyways, what follows is an unranked list of the best non-fiction non-academic books.

1. Bill Buford, Among the Thugs

The greatest book I have ever read. No, seriously. I blogged about this brilliant book a few months ago, but the short and sweet story is: this book is about the way crowds and mobs work, about football hooligans and weekends in England and Italy, and casual violence -- all woven together in arresting and captivating writing. If you don't follow my advice this one time, if you don't buy or borrow this book from your local library, if you don't wolf it down the way Harold and Kumar do those burgers at White Castle, then you are dead to me, and you should stop reading this blog. Seriously.

2. Jared Diamond, Guns, Germs And Steel

A history of everything. Rather, an explanation of everything -- using basic facts about population settlement and geography as the tools to do so. Awe-inspiring in the breadth of human history covered.

3. Malcolm Gladwell, Blink

Is there a better writer alive than Gladwell? If there is, I am unaware of their existence. This was Gladwell's best book, at least in my mind, because it didn't straw-man arguments as much as Outliers (does anyone actually believe success is merely the result of talent?) and more engaging than The Tipping Point (which tended to menader at times). And the chapter on the Bronx shooting of Amadou Diallo? Genius. Absolute genius.

4. Sudhir Venkatesh, Gang Leader For A Day

Venkatesh was a sociology PhD student here at U of C, and spent his years here researching the gangs on the South Side. While he has a bunch of academic stuff published on his time living side-by-side with gangs in housing projects, this book is written for a more pop-type audience. It's super interesting, and contains information and anecdotes you really won't be able to find anywhere else. FYI, Venkatesh is now a professor of sociology at Columbia. And Freakonomics blog readers will recognize him as a regular contributor there.

5. David Halberstam, Playing for Keeps

The best book I've ever read on Michael Jordan. The level of research and the number of people interviewed is off the charts -- even Michael's roommates from North Carolina get their moment in the sun.

The book basically tells the story of Michael's life until his second retirement (1999), and the Chicago Bulls' rise from also-ran to dynasty. It's got some really fun anecdotes and is really well written. The only drawback is that it isn't edited particluarly well -- there are a couple of things said again and again -- but that doesn't take away too much from the quality of the book.

6. Stephen Colbert, I Am America (And So Can You!)

Ok, I may be stretching the definition of "non-fiction" here, but whatever, it's my list. Colbert is, well, Colbert. If you enjoy his show, or his ballsy speech at the White House correspondents dinner a couple of years ago, then you will love his book. I understand Colbert is not for everyone, but I don't think I've ever laughed this hard reading a book.

7. Lynne Truss, Eats, Shoots & Leaves

I'm just going to copy and paste what I wrote about this book a year or so ago:

Truss is a grammar-phile. More accurately, she's a those-who-fuck-up-grammar-phobe. In a hilarious treatise on the state of grammar in today's world, Truss takes aim at all those who write incorrect or badly-written sentences. It's not just a railing against bad writing, however. Truss also describes in great detail the exact ways in which commas, apostrophes, and other punctuation marks should be used.

You should buy/read this book if: you want to laugh for three straight hours, or you're an adult and your grammar is terrible and you need help (ahem, AKS. Ahem).

You should not buy/read this book if: you don't think grammar is all that big a deal, or if you have no sense of humor.

8. Steve Waugh, Out of My Comfort Zone

The best sports autobiography I've ever read. The level of detail and care with which the book mirrors the level of detail and care Waugh took with his own career. It really is quite striking -- especially coming from the laissez-faire culture of preparation that all Pakistani cricket fans are used to -- how dedicated and hard-working this guy was. The determination to get better every single day may be a cliche, but for Steve Waugh, it was a mission statement. And the book has some great stories too. If you're a cricket fan, you have to read this book, if only to see how pathetic your favorite team/player looks when put up against Steve Waugh and his work ethic.

9. Owen Bennett Jones, Pakistan: Eye of the Storm

Absolutely and positively the best book I've ever read on Pakistan, its politics, and its history. The best thing about the book is how it appeals to different sorts of people: both those trying to learn something about the country for the first time, as well as area specialists and experts, can learn a great deal from this book. It's written by a former Pakistan correspondent for the BBC, and consequently is written as a long journalistic account than anything else. And its subject-by-subject breakdown is also useful more so than most writers' chronological accounts.

10. Nien Cheng, Life and Death in Shanghai

A gripping and powerful account by a woman caught up in China's cultural revolution in the 60s and 70s. Reading personal stories of people facing tyranny and torture in the face is always awe-inspiring to me. One thing that sticks out is the extent to which these people can be completely stoic and unyielding in such circumstances (Survival in Auschwitz is similar in this regard). Anyways, this particular book is about Nien's imprisonment and daily battle with Mao's Red Guards, the torture, hunger and pain she underwent on a daily basis, and how she refused to lose. It almost feels fictional at times -- which I suppose is testament to her struggle, and her courage in conquering it.

NBA Playoffs Preview

Wake me up for the Finals, will you?

After the three consecutive humdingers that were the '06, '07 and '08 playoffs, we're going to be treated to the basketball equivalent of a Nadal/Federer waltz to a Grand Slam final, which is when the real competition begins. As Simmons said, Vegas had the Cavs-Lakers prospective match-up in the finals at 4-to-7 odds...before the Garnett injury. Think about that for a second -- technically speaking, there could be 64 potential matchups in the Finals, and oddsmakers think one of them is so overwhelmingly likely that they will give you $400 if you put up a $700 risk. And again, this is before the only other team that could realistically challenge that has just seen its chances go up in smoke.

Be that as it may, here are my first round picks.

Eastern Conference

1 Cleveland vs. 8 Detroit

To anyone who thinks that Detroit can "cause the Cavs trouble" or "make this a long series" because of their "championship experience", I have two words: um, no. Have you seen Detroit play? Have you seen Cleveland play? Look at every single first-round series (including the West), and tell me this isn't the most lopsided matchup, the one in which one team has no shot to win. Come on, tell me. I'm waiting.

Didn't think so.

Prediction: Cavs in four.

2 Boston vs. 7 Chicago

Hmmm. Actually, let's add a few m's to that. Here goes: hmmmmmmmm.

This series is very intruiging. You have the wounded champs -- dealt a killer psychological and physical blow -- on the one hand, and an upstart team led by an insanely talented and heady rookie on the other. I'm tempted to go with Chicago, because (a) they have momentum, (b) they're not scared, and (c) for Obama's sake. But in my heart of hearts, I can't. At the end of the day, even if Boston with KG is a better team than Boston without KG, Boston without KG is a better team than Chicago.

Prediction: Celtics in six.

3 Orlando vs. 6 Philly

Well done, Stan Van Gundy. By running your mouth against Shaq, the Knicks, refs, the league, Chinese currency manipulators, the international non-proliferation regime, and Russian fiction, you succeeded in attracting bad karma. Now the whole world -- courtesy of that late-season swoon -- knows the following things:

1. Dwight Howard is not an offensive force in this league just yet.
2. If the 3s aren't falling in the first three quarters, it doesn't matter how hot you get in the 4th, because you've dug yourself too big a hole.
3. Despite the gaudy regular season numbers, your team is closer to the East's second tier (Philly, Miami) than the top (Cleveland, Boston).

We're about to find out just how close. I'm feeling an upset here.

Prediction: Sixers in six.

4 Atlanta vs. 5 Miami

The whole "the best player in a series usually wins it" argument is so overblown. If that was true, Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant and Lebron James would never have lost playoff series. I'm willing to grant that Dwyane Wade is a phenomenal player with a phenomenal season behind him. I'm not willing to disrespect the very solid strides Atlanta have made this year. And please stop thinking of Joe Johnson as chopped liver. Dude can play. And can someone please tell me who Miami's second best player is?

Prediction: Atlanta in six.

Western Conference

1 L.A. vs. 8 Utah

What the hell happened to Utah? Weren't they supposed to be the proverbial "toughest team" in the West? The one team that could legitimately challenge all other heavy-hitters in the post-season? The team that would execute, execute, execute on offense and suffocate, suffocate, suffocate on defense?

Man, remember how tough Utah played the Lakers last year? Good, because it won't happen again.

Prediction: Lakers in five.

2 Denver vs. 7 New Orleans

What an insanely fun series this is going to be. You've got two highly entertaining teams, one of them highly combustible (no, I don't trust you yet Denver), one of them with the best point guard this league has seen in the last five years (not you, Chauncey), and some great individual match-ups.

It's going to turn on Chandler's physical health and the Nuggets' mental health. I think Denver takes it, but only just.

Prediction: Nuggets in seven

3. San Antonio vs. 6 Dallas

Can you imagine how fun this series would be if it were 2003? Sadly it is not, so we're going to see two teams past their prime trying their hardest not to lose. Though I have to say, I was really impressed with Dallas' rise from wherever the hell they were at the beginning of the season to number 6 in the West. As Ali G might say, respect.

As for the Ginobili injury, even though I hate him and the Spurs, I was really bummed when I read about it, because it meant the only viable challenge to the Lakers (whom I hate even more) were dead and buried. They'll survive this series, if only because Tony Parker is going to have a monster series (trust me), but after that, all bets are off.

Prediction: Spurs in five.

4 Portland vs. 5 Houston

The most compelling series for sure. Portland has more talent man-for-man, has home court, and has the best player. Houston as...I'm not sure what, but I do know that they're very much in this series. I don't know who's going to stop Yao in this series, and the Rockets can throw either Battier or Artest on Roy. If McGrady was playing, I would take Portland for sure. But now that his cursed body and mind have been removed from the premises, I think Houston might take this. But I'm not sure.

Prediction: Rockets in six.

UPDATE: One more day.

Lost Season Five: Episode 13

If I was a little disappointed by 'Some Like it Hoth', it is only because the episodes that preceded it have been so heavy with emotion and plot development, making this outing seem slight in comparison. And there won't be a new Lost episode for two more weeks. Still, there's a lot to be for just throwing Miles and Hurley into a Dharma mini van and letting them talk. At the very least you are guaranteed a lot of laughs, and 'Some Like it Hoth' scored in that regard.

- Major props to supe for calling out that Miles would be Dr Chang's son. In retrospect it seems quite obvious but she called it early.

- Given all the daddy issue's on Lost - Jack's father was an alcoholic, Sawyer's killed his wife, Kate killed her's, Locke's threw him out of a friggin window - Miles' non-relationship with his father doesn't seem all that big a deal. And I'm pretty surprised that it took a show as geeky as Lost five seasons to make the obvious Luke Skywalker/Darth Vader comparison.

- I'm convinced Dr Chang knows Miles is his son. He's obviously a smart guy and what are the odds of two Asian-Americans named Miles ending up on the Island?

- What exactly would Hurley change about The Empire Strikes Back? That movie is damn near perfect.

- How much attention do you have to pay on even a minor episode of Lost? If you thought it was odd that Miles asked Ben for $3.2 million last year to help him you finally found out why he chose that amount.

- Who were the guys that tried to convince Miles not to go to the Island for Widmore. One of them was on Ajira and we got another reference to "what lies in the shadow of the statue." Given Ben's interaction with the Ajira guys, I don't think they work for him and I wouldn't put it past Lost to introduce another damn stakeholder in the Island.

- I'm loving the new serene Jack but given LeFleur is about to get into a holy mess I expect him to take charge again and because the same domineering asshole.

- So many great Hurley and Miles one-liners:
"It'll help with global warming, which hasn't hapenned yet. Maybe we can prevent it."
"You're just jealous my power's better than yours."
"That douche is my dad"
"The ditch had a gun?"

- The guy Miles did his phony ghost-whispering to is on Breaking Bad, which may just be the best-acted show on television. You all should check it out.

- I loved the look on Mile's face when he found out his dad likes country music.

- Another reference to the numbers. This has been cropping up since the first season but I don't think we'll ever get a satisfactory explanation for their power.

- I now suspect that Widmore didn't fake the crash and bodies. When Miles talked to the dead guy with Naomi he said that the guy was killed when delivering the photos to Widmore. Ben must have had that guy killed since he showed the Losties the pictures in season four. But I wouldn't be surprised if some third party (the 'shadow of the statue' guys" were responsible for the fake plane.

- Now that Daniel's back (how did he leave? why have Dharma hired him? don't they recognize him as the guy who was with LaFleur), I think everything is going to fall in place. He'll know how to get everyone back into present time. All we need before that is for Sayid to rejoin them, Lapidus to be saved from the Ajira dudes and Desmond to find some reason to come back to the Island.

The Tipping Point: Roger Federer and Billy Corgan Meltdown

A startling loss of form isn't enough for Roger Federer. He's decided to screw his dignity too.
Here's your question of the day.

Did Roger Federer become an embarrassment when he

a) Took his anger out on his racket in a loss to Djokovic two weeks ago

b) When the greatest hard-court player in the history of tennis declared:

Thank God the hardcourt season is over

c) Today, when he lost in straight sets to Stan Wawrinka at the Monte Carlo Masters and gave an almost Safin-esque press conference, in the course of which he manged to dis his greatest weapon ("It's normal for me to miss forehands") and took a veiled swipe at Djokovic when he said that he preferred losing to Wawrinka because it was "against a good guy."

d) When he decided appearing in this Gillette ad was a good idea. Be sure to check out the ironic tagline at the end.



And when did Smashing Pumkins singer Billy Corgan decide pride was not something he was particularly interested in any longer?

Was it

a) When he discovered why the Chicago Cubs had such a sucky season:

"If the Cubs did have a chance this last year that just passed, fuckin’ Eddie Vedder killed that shit dead. Last I checked Eddie ain’t living here, okay? Eddie ain’t living here to write a song about my fuckin’ team."

b) When he thought he should continue the Smashing Pumpkins without anyone else

c) When he opted to bastardize one of his best songs to promote a wrestling show

Cynicism Be Damned

I first became a fan of Britain's Got Talent after watching Paul Potts do this:



This year's show brings us Susan Boyle. It's taken her less than a week to become an international superstar. Here's why:

Susan Boyle on Britain's Got Talent
Uploaded by dwarthy

Susan Boyle in her own words:

"Modern society is too quick to judge people on their appearances," she said. "There is not much you can do about it; it is the way they think; it is the way they are. But maybe this could teach them a lesson, or set an example."

Videos of the Day

I'm going to post some videos up today, none of which have anything to do with each other.

This one (celebratory shout out to Naveen – (do you have a flag?)) is courtesy Eddie Izzard, and as you would expect is hilarious. On a related note, I will sheepishly admit that I’m quite keen to see the new (11th) Star Trek movie. Some of you Losties out there may be interested to note that it is being produced by two of the three creators of Lost, namely J.J. Abrams and Damon Lindelof.

This video sets out an true story that didn’t need its ‘American Idol’ style editing to make it inspiring. It’s the real deal, complete with mind numbing levels of dedication and love. Many thanks to Kamil for passing it on to me. You can read more about it here, but I'll include one choice quote from an old article:

"How's a guy whonever learned to swim and hadn't ridden a bike since he was six going tohaul his 110-pound kid through a triathlon? Still, Dick tried. Now they'vedone 212 triathlons, including four grueling 15-hour Ironmans in Hawaii. Itmust be a buzzkill to be a 25-year-o! ld stud getting passed by an old guy towing a grown man in a dinghy..."

This video (shout out to Srila) is a cool ass technology called ‘siftables’. I can't embed it but please click the link because it is a must see for everyone who reads this (but especially to technies and/or anyone interested in creative and intuitive techniques for education).

Then theres this. Clearly, the concept of jumping jacks doesn’t translate very well across cultures. Please do note how every individual has his own unique path to failure, resulting in collective chaos. My favourite is the guy who is standing second to last on the right.

Finally, another dose of British humour. I actually do not like Russell Brand (annoying and pompous), but I have to hand it to the guy. This clip made me laugh. Anyone who has ever managed to get past the massive page 3 boobs and actually read ‘The Sun’ should watch it.

Any Excuse Will Do

Have you ever bemoaned the stereotype of Punjabis as lazy, privileged sardars who expect everyone to do their dirty work for them? This story won't do anything to change the stereotype:

Punjab Chief Minister (CM) Shahbaz Sharif halted all official business when a lizard appeared in his office, sources told Daily Times on Wednesday. They said Shahbaz had been in his office (7-Club Road, GOR-I) two days ago with several senior officials when a lizard appearing on the ceiling disrupted the purpose of the meeting. They said lower subordinates were directed to kill the lizard, adding that a CM’s Secretariat employee was sent to purchase insecticide. Normally, the comptrollers are responsible for ensuring a clean environment at the CM’s Secretariat. They said insecticides were sprayed on a daily basis at all senior officials’ offices. They said no enquiry against the authorities concerned had been initiated.

Top Ten Academic Books

Alright, top ten lists have been all the rage on the internets recently. What got it started was Steve Walt's list of top ten books every IR student should read (which, inexplicably, left off number one on my list below). Dan Drezner followed up with a list of top ten worst books in IR (so, I guess, it's a bottom ten list). My friend Lindsey then came up with a list of twenty books every IR student should read, including some non-IR books.

Well, I am nothing if not a slave to trends set by others. So I will be giving you three lists: best academic books, best non-fiction books outside academia, and best fiction books. I will start today with my favorite academic books ever, and include in parantheses which discipline they come from. Keep in mind, these are not the greatest works ever written, but the greatest works ever written that I have read. Also, these are in no particular order, except for number one, which remains my favorite book.

1. Alex Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics (IR)

I can only presume that Wendt's omission on Walt's list is some sort of Neorealist smackdown to the godfather of social constructivist thought in IR. Whatever the reason, I can not imagine any IR student -- irrespective of intellectual persuasion -- not reading this book. You should not be allowed to leave graduate school without having read this book three times: the first time to familiarize yourself with Wendt's prose, the second to actually begin to understand the contours of his argument, and the third to realize what a brilliant piece of scholarship it is.

Wendt's central insights -- that material structure in and of itself implies nothing about the way anarchy works, and that ideas, identities and discourse are constitutive to interests -- are incredibly powerful, and much-needed in the literature.

2. Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities (Comparative Politics, IR, Sociology)

You cannot have a discussion about nationalism without starting with Benny Anderson's canonical work. End of story. It's also very non-academic in its prose -- anyone can read it in a couple of sittings.

3. John Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (IR)

I agree with almost none of the central premises in this book (except for the "stopping power of water", I guess). But it remains one of the central works in the field for its clarity of thought, simple, accessible and lyrical writing style, and its honest and worthy attempt to explain a lot with very little. One of the great works in IR theory. Bonus points because the author really liked my MA thesis (and will hopefully feel the same way about the dissertation).

4. Eugen Weber, Peasants Into Frenchmen (Comparative Politics, History)

Don't let the boring subtitle ("The Modernization of Rural France, 1870-1914") fool you. This is one of the most thrilling an exhilirating reads you will find on the role of the state in building nationalism, on French history, on the ways in which national militaries and school curricula can impact the ways in which citizens think of themselves and their country, and much, much more. Its central contribution lies in showing how the notion of identity is so malleable -- Weber shows how "French" citizens of the Republic in the countryside did not really consider themselves "French"...until the state partook in very deliberate and conscious processes of state-building nationalism. And it's beautifully written.

5. Oskar Verkaaik, Migrants and Militants (Anthropology)

For number five, we're coming home. Well, not exactly, but close enough. Verkaaik describes the ways by which violence can be "fun" for its participants by analyzing the MQM and its young cadres in Hyderabad. He shows how violence -- when it is bottom up rather than top down -- can be a bonding experience for young males, and that it isn't necessarily a malevolent thing for its practioners but more about friendship and camaraderie. It also is an excellent book for people who have kinda/sorta heard of the MQM but want to learn more -- the history of the organization and the political party is superb.

6. Thomas Schelling, Arms and Influence (IR)

The book on military strategy, and strategy more generally. It's kind of funny that the security side of IR hasn't really improved on Schelling -- maybe because you can't. Also happens to the best written book on this list, and I suspect most people's lists. Just a beautifully written book.

7. Ayesha Jalal, Democracy and Authoritarianism in South Asia (History)

What I love about Jalal's book is that she is an historian basically writing as a political scientist. An interpretivist political scientist, to be sure, but a political scientist nonetheless. She also happens to have a very compelling argument for the reasons for Pakistan's democratic deficit relative to India. Essentially, her thesis is that at independence and in the years shortly after, Muslim League representatives did not have roots in the areas that became Pakistan the way that Congress politicians did in India. Consequently, politicians in Pakistan became increasingly reliant on the bureaucracy and (gulp) the military to sow order and peace, and establish a state. This led to an imbalanced relationship between the bureaucracy/military elites on the one hand, and civilian leaders on the other. The rest, as they say, is history.

8. Benjamin Valentino, Final Solutions (IR)

Without a doubt, the most gruesome book on this list. When the subtitle of your book is "Mass Killings and Genocide in the 20th century", you've earned that title. The scariest thing about Valentino's research is that it becomes appallingly clear how easy it is to commit genocide: you don't need fancy weapons (Rwanda's was done by and large with machetes) and you don't need an entire society behind you (Cambodia's was carried out by a fairly small number of people). You just need a small cadre of leaders who have tried to simply get rid of an unwanted population from their territory, and failed. So they try the next logical step: killing them all.

9. Richard Overy, Russia's War (History)

In terms of lives lost, no war holds a candle to the Soviet-German war on the Eastern front in World War II. I will let Wiki take over temporarily:

It was the largest theatre of war in history and was notorious for its unprecedented ferocity, destruction, and immense loss of life. It bore the bulk of the Holocaust as the site of all extermination camps, death marches, ghettos, and most pogroms. More people fought and died on the Eastern Front than in all other theatres of World War II combined. Various figures average a total number of 70,000,000 dead because of WWII; with over 30 million dead, many of them civilians, the Eastern Front represents well over one-third of this total, and has been called a war of extermination. It resulted in the destruction of the Third Reich, the partition of Germany and the rise of the Soviet Union as a military and industrial superpower.

Think about that again: more people fought and died on the Eastern Front than in all other theatres of World War II combined. Look at the number dead: thirty million. And no book describes this war -- in loose, classical prose -- as well as Overy's.

10. Donald Horowitz, Ethnic Groups in Conflict (Comparative Politics)

If you want to write about ethnic war, you start with reading Horowitz. If you want to think about ethnic politics in multi-cultural and multi-lingual states, you start with reading Horowitz. If you want to talk about the ways in which different ethnic groups live next to each other, you start with reading Horowitz. Nuff said.

What about you, readers? What are the great academic books you've read?

Poll Post

You can comment on the poll here.

p.s. And no, before any of you smartasses ask, I'm not asking from personal experience. Though the 5-7 white hairs on my head are true cause for concern, no doubt.

Barcelona Thank Bayern For Showing Up, Chelsea Edge Liverpool In Twelve-Goal Tie

If I had told you last Monday that the Liverpool-Chelsea tie would result in twice as many goals as the Barcelona-Bayern tie, how many times would you have slapped me?

Thoughts on the Barca-Bayern game:

1. So that's what Bayern look like when they're not shell-shocked. Give them credit, they showed up today and actually showed a semblance of fight. Fat lot of good it did them, but it was better than their show last week when they were trying their best "deer in the headlights" impersonation, or to use Uli Hoeness' phrase, "rabbits caught in front of a snake" impersonation. They weren't good enough to even threaten to challenge the 4-0 deficit, but at least they played hard and looked like a team from the same planet as Barca. That they did this 90 minutes too late is neither here nor there.

2. I haven't seen much of Luca Toni other than these two legs (and his performances for Italy of course) but color me unimpressed. He missed an absolute sitter in the opening five minutes -- seriously, Bendtner would have put it away -- and missed a chance to cause a few hearts to flutter in the Barca camp. Bayern really, really, REALLY needed a quick goal -- for self-belief if nothing else -- and if he had safely nodded in that header past Valdes, who the hell knows what would have happened? At the very least, it would have been game on.

Even discounting that chance though, he showed expertise at nothing else except (a) diving, and (b) running his hands through his hair. Disappointing effort.

3. Barca were off the pace today, no doubt about it. Whether it's the schedule catching up with them, or the self-assuredness that comes with a four goal lead, or half an eye on the next round of games coming up, they weren't the usual Barca. Sure they strung a lot of passes together and dominated possession (again), but the usual zip was missing. Many players, inclding Messi, Eto'o and Puyol, just seemed half a step slow today.

4. Ribery can play. Just thought I'd throw that out there.

5. Von Bommel is kind of a cunt. Thought I'd throw that out there too.

6. So what next for these two teams? Well, Bayern go back to the drawing board and have to figure out if Klinsmann is the manager for this team. More immediately, they're locked in a four-horse race for the Bundesliga -- one anticipates that the results of the latter will wholly impact the former.

As for Barca, well, maybe it's just better if I just give you the dates and opponents for their next few matches:

April 18: away against Getafe (given Barca a lot of trouble the last few seasons)
April 22: home to Sevilla (third in La Liga)
April 26: away against Valencia (fourth)
April 28/29: home to Chelsea (more on this in a minute)
May 3: away against Real (title race decider?)
May 5/6: away to Chelsea
May 10: home to Villareal (fifth in La Liga).
May 13: Copa del Ray final against Bilbao.

So, yeah. If you're counting the two Bayern games and the weekender against Recreativo, that's eleven games in 35 days, including two against the best German team, two against Chelsea (the English team most likely to cause Barca trouble), four against the rest of the top five in Spain, and a cup final. Fun stuff.

6. I will have a proper preview of the Barca-Chelsea tie at another stage, but I have to say that I don't see Barca getting past them. Too crazy a schedule, too physical a match up, too crappy a keeper, second leg away etc etc. But as I said, a proper preview will be had later.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Speaking of Chelsea, goddamn. I obviously didn't watch the Liverpool game, but eight goals? Seriously? 7-5 on aggregate? What the hell happened to these two teams?

UPDATE: Just watched the two remaining quarter-finals. On the Man U - Porto game, it was a fair result on the night and on aggregate. Porto gave it everything, especially the last 25 minutes or so of the game, but they just didn't have enough quality in the final third. They had one clear chance, and then a bunch of other half- and quarter-chances. You also have to tip your hat to United; it seems every time they need this sort of performance, they get one. Really steely performance, well-disciplined and organized. Well done to then. And -- it really hurts to say this -- fantastic goal from Ronaldo. Killer strike.

On the Arsenal-Villareal game, all the talk, I suspect, will be on the penalty (harsh) and the ensuing red card for the chit-chat (not so harsh). You really have to feel for Villareal, because even at 2-0 down, they really looked like they could get back into it -- constantly knocking on the door and asking questions. A lot can happen in 25 minutes (just ask Chelsea and Liverpool). But when the penalty came, it was over.

I'll have a preview thread for the semis up on the weekend.

UPDATE II: You've got to love United fans. Please read these two comments from a piece on the Guardian. First, this one:

Forget Messi tonight you saw the best player in the world score one of the best champions league goals ever! What a fabulous, fabulous strike. It reminded me of Bobby Charlton in his pomp and that is a compliment not lightly bestowed. It certainly outshone the Alex thump of last night.

And then this one:

Oh, and that goal is a good example of why Ronaldo IS probably the best player in the world. A goal like that is not in "Leo" Messi's arsenal, nor could he score the kind of headers that C Ronaldo scored v Roma or Chelsea last season.

You know, I completely grant people the right to be as irrational as they want, but don't fucking talk about Lionel Messi that way. It's goddamn disrespectful, ok?

UPDATE III: From the Guardian report on the Arsenal-Villareal game:

Former Arsenal players retain a special affection for life under Wenger, as Robert Pires demonstrated by hugging Gunnersaurus, the eight-foot furry dinosaur who greets the squads off the bus (the Arsenal team high-five him, but Wenger confines himself to a handshake).

The mental image of Wenger shaking a green dinosaur's hand just killed me. So much so that I google imaged "gunnersaurus wenger". This is what I found:

Quote of the Day

So, technically speaking this is a thirty-year-old quote, but I just came across it today and it's too good not to post. This is in reference to Ted Turner's attempt to colourize classic films.

When Orson Welles heard that Turner wanted a crack at Citizen Kane, the director reportedly grunted, “Tell Turner to keep his goddamned Crayolas away from my film!”

Links For Monday

Stuff to make you work slower, and thus help you get fired in this recession:

You know how they say "with great power comes great responsibility"? Well, Asif Zardari wishes they didn't say it. He would prefer, bless his heart, all the benefits of the power without the potential to be blamed for anything that goes wrong.

Holy shit, there might be a tax on soft drinks in the U.S. I cannot live without cheap Coke (stop sniggering, I mean the drink). Ergo, I am going to stock up on 45000 cans to get me through the next couple of years. (Link courtesy Sarah).

This is a really cool interactive guide to the events of the Hillsborough tragedy 20 years ago, when close to 100 fans were crushed to death at a football match.

How magazines are trying to cope with the death of journalism.

Here's a piece on what careers young people will switch to now that finance has died (and killed everything else with it). I've always maintained that one of the most pernicious effects of Wall Street's overcompensation was that it drew legitimate talent away from other industries and sectors where that talent would be better suited. (Link courtesy an anonymous commenter).

I'm in the middle of a very muddled phase of thinking about Pakistan's relationship with the U.S, and the latter's strategy toward the former. Once my thoughts are crystallized, I'll have a post out, but in the meantime, here's some of what I've been reading on the issue in the last 24 hours or so:

1. This column by Anatol Lieven in the Financial Times (via Obsidian Wings).
2. Steve Walt's posts on what he calls the "Af-Pak" muddle. Here's the first, and here's the second.
3. The Indian angle, in a short post from Arif and in this editorial in Dawn.

Sorry for the limited links, but I have limited time today.

Unoffensive Free Speech Is An Oxymoron

The most ridiculous aspect of the mindless Benazir's lap/PPP jiyalas/Shanaakth controversy has been the the bizarre insistence that speech can only be free if it is acceptable and non-offensive to all. Here, for instance, is Waqar Mehdi -- spokesman for the Chief Minister for Sindh -- on what he thinks of free speech:

Anything that is religiously or politically controversial should not be displayed. It should be acceptable to all. Even if offensive pictures of Altaf Hussain or Nawaz Sharif were displayed, we would oppose it. Our party believes in freedom of expression, but that does not mean it should be a free-for-all. People’s feelings should not be hurt.

Read those last two sentences again: "our party believes in freedom of expression, but...people's feelings should not be hurt". Think for a moment how ridiculous that statement is.

The simple point -- so simple, in fact, that I feel really stupid making it -- is that there is the potential for someone to find something offensive about everything. Some people find Bollywood films offensive (too much booty shaking). Some people find Tom and Jerry cartoons offensive (too violent). Some people find nude paintings offensive (too erotic), and some people find right wing commentary offensive (too stupid). Consequently, society -- from a purely utilitarian and mass-welfare point of view -- can do one of two things:

1. Analyze every word published, every photograph printed, every film screened, every painting displayed, every item of clothing sewn, and every speech given for content, tone, medium, and decency. After this analysis, a committee should discern who amongst the society is likely to be offended and who not by these creations. Once this analysis is complete, the committee should pass its recommendations to another committee to analyze whether the people who are offended are important for society's well-being. Once this analysis is done, a committee can pass its recommendations on to the government on whether or not the creation should be allowed to stand.

Of course at no point in this entire process are the ideological, religious, ethnic and gender affiliations of the various committees supposed to come into play. Furthermore, at no point is there a danger that the committee can be bribed or otherwise influenced to allow certain creations and disallow others. The entire process will be fair, balanced and transparent.

2. Allow people to write, publish, say, paint, and film whatever the fuck they want. Those who are offended by one or the other item can look the other way, change the channel, put the book down, leave the art gallery or the cinema, and stop making such a fucking nuisance of themselves.

Personally, I vote for number two, but I don't know about you guys.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Let's step back for a second and think about the relationship between principle and policy.

At its most efficient and smooth-running, a society's collective principles are perfectly aligned with the society's laws. But sometimes, by virute of having contradictory principles, that cannot be true.

Consider incest. Many Western societies are loathe to govern their citizens' sex lives. This reluctance to legislate bedroom activity is born of the principle: what people do behind closed doors is no one's business but theirs. If this principle was carried to the extreme, then incest would be legal. And yet it is not. Why is this? Because many Western societies think that sexual relations between blood relatives is morally abhorrent and biologically damaging. So the principle of sexual freedom meets the principle of moral questionability, and they meet halfway, and the result is that incest is banned.

Note that the principle of sexual freedom is not met in its totality, even if the result is what most people prefer.

So, to be wholly simplistic about the entire enterprise, there are two types of principles that are imbued in a society's laws: those that have no real wiggle room ("you cannot kill someone unprovoked") and those that do ("what you do in the bedroom is no one's business"). The natural question, then, arises: which of these two camps does -- or should -- the idea of freedom of express reside in?
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Let us take each possibility in turn. Let us imagine first that freedom of expression and speech is intrinsically and inherently negotiable, malleable, and fluid. That there is always a "but..." or "however..." attached to it. What would a world with such a principle look like?

For one thing, there would be fewer people offended. If every creative venture had to be pre-approved by all segments of society -- across class, ethnic, racial, ideological, age, gender and party lines -- then it stands to reason that only things approved by all would make it through the filter, and thus there would be no reason for anyone to object to anything created in that society. Forgetting the impracticalities of such a world, imagine if you would like to live in such a world, even if it was possible. Where no conventional wisdom would be challenged, nothing controversial said or done, uniformity of thought and speech encouraged.

In the alternate world, we would have the opposite problem. Because there would be so much offending material in the air -- from music videos to fascist pamphlets, from erotic art to pornography -- that there would exist a constant stream of outrage. It would be harder to get along. Faultlines would be drawn, and made more salient.

Are these images caricatures? Yes, to be sure. And yet, there is an important point contained with them, and that is the fact that freedom of expression, more than most concepts, is especially vulnerable to slippery-slope arguments. If we deny someone the right to say or write something without an attendant threat of violence, then it cannot be fair for others to escape censure (and the censor) for what they write. Why should some people's red lines, after all, be more red than others? As I said earlier, if I find Zaid Hamid's crazy conspiracy theorizing and hate-filled shit offensive, then why can't I legitimately ask the government to step in, or step in myself? Why can't I hire a bunch of goons with guns to go and ransack the offices of TV One? Why does the PPP get to have its way with what is said, and not me?
_____________________________________________________________________________________

This, my friends, is the fundamental problem with censorship: people other than you getting to decide for you what you find acceptable. Some government bureaucrat, or some merry band of PPP/JI/MQM jiyalas, or some set of nameless and faceless people making your preferences for you. It is at root and at its very core an unfair proposition.

Which is why it is unsurprising that the PPP's support for it is wholehearted. After all, "fairness" is not the term that comes to mind when we are treated to the strange spectacle of a political party lodging an FIR against the victim of the hooliganism of last week. This is the legal equivalent of a rapist suing his victim -- after raping her -- for wearing something too revealing, while the rape victim profusely apologizes. It is the complete and absolute antithesis of fairness and justice.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

I know there are more "important" issues that plague Pakistan today -- a near unwinnable war as currently fought, and a collapsing economy chief among them -- but that does not mean the little things don't count. Moreover, it would be easy for the ruling party of this country to actually score some points here (unlike with the war and the economy, where there are no good options), and get some credit for doing the right thing.

They know exactly who these goons were. Bring them to justice for their crimes, and everybody (well, almost everybody) gives them a deserved round of applause.

Why am I not holding my breath?

Benazir's Picture at Shanakth

Apparently, this is the 'photograph' of Benazir that was displayed at the Shanakht festival in the Arts Council in Karachi, and the cause of so much 'offense' to the PPP Jiyalas.

I don't really have much by way of comment, except that:

A) its clearly not a photograph or a painting of anything, and is rather an intentionally obvious mock up of a family portrait, with the heads cut & pasted over. It depicts Yahya Khan on the lower right, Ayub holding baby Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto on the rear left, Benazir, sitting on Zia's lap, and (I cannot for the life of me identify the person on the top right).

B) Its obviously meant to be provocative, not offensive,

C) I hope the entire Pakistani Blogosphere is plastering this all over the net, so that the 'offended' PPP Jiyalaas who saw fit to disrupt the festival, fire their weapons, issue death threats and FIRs to the organizers of the event, and who generally think that Pakistan is their fucking fief, may eat shit and die.

Lost Season Five: Episode 12

After watching "Dead is Dead" I feel somewhat embarrassed by my praise for last week's episode. As much fun as that was, "Dead is Dead" was a masterclass, mainly by Michael Emerson and Terry O'Quinn. This episode had a little bit of everything we love about Lost; the smoke monster, daddy issues, the leadership struggle between Ben and Locke and even a little bit of Desmond. Let's go through the awesomeness in chronological (whatever that means on Lost) order.

- A bloodied Ben gazes in surprise at a resurrected Locke. That surprise seemed genuine although, in what will be a recurring theme of this post, we can never be sure when Ben is lying. What followed seems to glib to be anything but a lie. Ben tells Locke, with cocksure confidence, that his masterful plan had worked: the only way the Oceanic 6 would have come back to the Island was if Locke died. And somehow Ben knew that Locke would come back to life. But, you might ask, why didn't Ben let Locke commit suicide. Well, he explains, he needed to get the crucial information about Mrs Hawking first.

- I'm going to do a lot of quoting from the brilliant dialogue in this episode. How about when Locke asks Ben about "the elephant in the room."? Ben's reply is delivered perfectly. "Well, I just didn't have time to talk you back into hanging yourself."

- Ben's manipulation of Cesar was also perfectly executed. He planted the seeds of doubt about Locke, swiped his gun and then used it to kill him. The Machiavellian Ben we know and love. Oh and not to forget Locke's one-liner when Ben explains he had to shoot Cesar because he was going to shoot Locke. "No sense in my dying twice, right?"

- Even before the smoke monster, in the guise of Alex, told Ben that he had to follow Locke from now on, the relationship between the two had changed. Before, Locke was the apprentice, trying to learn about leadership and the Island from Ben. He stumbled along the way and was manipulated many times. But his resurrection, and the obvious shock that caused Ben, has changed the equation. For once, it is Ben who is in the dark. See, I don't believe for a second that Ben had come back to be judged by the smoke monster. I think it was just another story meant to stop Locke from exacting his revenge. When Ben put his hand in the water to summon the smoke monster, I think he was just putting on a show that was sure to appeal to a mystic like Locke. But now Locke has more information about the Island than Ben. He knows (probably through Jin) where the smoke monster is and Ben has no choice but to go along.

- We've always considered Ben to be the know-it-all, someone well-versed in the mythology of the Island. I'm now beginning to think he might be a charlatan, something that should have occurred to me before considering the title of the Ben-centric season three episode "The Man Behind the Curtain." There are a lot of things Ben doesn't know: he doesn't know where the smoke monster lives; hell he doesn't even have a name for the thing. He told Sun that he never expected Locke to come back to life, which I happen to believe. He also says that he has no idea how the Losties could end up in 1977, although I think he's lying about that. Although little Ben might not remember who shot him, surely he remembers Le Fleur and the rest.

- Sure, Ben is a monster but this episode did a great job of humanizing him a little bit. Because of the absence of his dead mother, Ben has a weakness. We saw that when he took Alex but didn't kill Rosseau. We saw it in the great scene at the marina , where Charlie's presence saved his mother's live.

- How awesome was Desmond's smackdown of Ben? No question he deserved it, but has there ever been a character in television history who has been physically assaulted as much as Ben?

- When Sun mentioned Christian to Ben, he seemed genuinely startled. Here's a prediction. Christian is on Widmore's side and Ben killed him in Australia. He was ressurected just the way Locke was.

- What we thought was The Temple, is only a entrance meant to keep out people. Which led to another thought. Perhaps The Temple is actually a modern, anti-septic building and stuff like the entrance and the four-toed statue are meant to decieve people into thinking that The Others have been around forever.

- So, what is Ilena upto? I'm sure we're going to be wondering what is in the shadow of the statue for a long time. She must have been lying when she told Sayid she was working for the guy he killed. Who does she work for? Widmore?

- Another great quote: Lapidus saying, "As long as the dead guy says there's a reason, I guess everything's going to be just peachy."

- Eventually, Ben is going to die an ugly, painful death isn't he? There's just no way he can change his character and start following Locke.

- And to bring this post to a close, Ben's final line. "It let me live." He made it sound like a death sentence, the control-freak now reduced to being a follower. Ben certainly doesn't feel like he was spared. Given how guilty he feels over his role in Alex's death, and that he now has to obey Locke, Ben will consider his fate to be worse than being mauled by Ol' Smokey.

Barcelona Light Up Bayern, Chelsea Dispense With Liverpool, Champions League Thrown Wide Open

Wow. I need to take a deep breath just so my fingers can stop shaking so I can actually type properly. Here are some thoughts on today's 4-0 brushing aside of Bayern:

1. Bayern looked shell shocked. The entire team with the exception of van Bommel (who somehow avoided getting booked despite elbowing Messi in the face) and Ribery to a more limited extent looked completely lost, and had no idea of what the hell to do. This was especially true after the first twelve minutes, by which time Barca were already 2-0 up. Again, I don't think this says a lot about Bayern's character or their fortitude -- I just think it says something about the type of team that Barca is (brilliant) and the way they play (relentless), and the fact that Bayern simply haven't seen this before.

Look, this is completely understandable (and I'm really not trying to be condescending or patronizing here): when you come across something you haven't seen before, you tend to freeze -- whether it's a killer job interview or a football match. Bayern froze, and now barring a miracle in 6 days, are out.

2. I loved the Sid Lowe vs. Raphael Honigstein "debate" on the Guardian blogs in the run-up to the game. Sid Lowe (their La Liga guy) thought that Barca would beat Bayern. Honigstein (their Bundesliga guy) also thought Barca would beat Bayern. This was a debate the same way the actual football was a contest.

3. You can't deny the impact of the injuries to Bayern's backline (or maybe you can, who knows?). I don't know enough about Bayern to say for sure if the replaced players Lucio and Lahm would have made a difference, but I do know that Bayern's backline showed an alarming proclivity to pass it to one of Barca's front five in their own half, consequently putting themselves under too much pressure. But in a way, you have to credit the Barca frontline for that (especially Eto'o), whose collective work ethic and chasing down panic-stricken defenders was almost cruel to watch. For all the flash and slick passing, one of the most important elements of Barca's game is getting after the opposition and not letting them settle on the ball. It's constant 90 minutes pressure, and combined with having to chase the ball for large stretches (don't know the stats, but the possession had to be in the order of 65-35), it wreaks havoc with a team's mental and physical well-being.

4. Messi? Yeah. For his performances this year, they should invent a new trophy -- all this World Player of the Year crap doesn't cut it. Give him his own mountain or Pacific island or something. One clear penatly denied, two goals, two set ups, about six or seven slick moves in and around the penalty area, about 17 run-by-the-guy-ostensibly-marking-yous, and about 40,000 migraines caused to Bayern fans.

5. Speaking of that not-given penalty, that has to be one of the worst decisions I've ever seen. Not only was it a CLEAR penalty, but the ref somehow conspired to give Messi a yellow for diving. Pep was INCENSED and managed to get himself thrown out of the dugout for his troubles. I don't know exactly what Uefa's rules are on rescinding yellows upon review, but if ever there was a candidate, this was it.

6. Ok, the neutrals and the Bayern fans are really going to want to smack me for saying this, but I'm getting kind of tired of Barca's habit of taking their foot off the pedal in the second half of blown-open games. Against Malaga, they have six in the first 55 minutes, none in the last 35. Against Lyon they had four in the first half, then added just one right at the end. I suppose it's natural to have a drop-off in intensity when you the know the game's over, but isn't it the manager's job to ensure that players play their hardest no matter what?

7. Rafa Marquez, you beauty. You did nothing all game except pick up a very smart yellow. Well done. For those who missed it, Rafa was going to be suspended for the next game upon receiving a yellow. Seeing as how this tie is basically over barring a miracle, he time-wasted his way to getting one at the end of the game. Brilliant. Now he's suspended for a near-inconsequential game, and will be back for the semis against Chelsea.

8. A big thumbs-up to Yaya Toure and Dani Alves, who kept Ribery and Toni from even threatening, let alone actually doing anything of note. Pockets and all that. By the way, shouldn't Ribery have waited until the final whistle to give his jersey to Henry? Or did he not think he was going to be played in the second half?
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Quick thoughts on the other games:

Damn Chelsea, that was impressive. You know, it's clear that picking a winner in any game involving the English top four is a prognostication minefield. I don't know anyone who would have picked that scoreline before the day started. Well, there you go: that's why the games are played on the pitch, and not on paper.

Most exciting second leg award goes to ManU-Porto, where any of four results (outright wins for either, away goals win, penalties) could be plausible.

Arsenal aren't home free just yet.

UPDATE: Please watch this video of a 5 year-old Messi. By the way, I'm pretty sure one of those vicious tackles at 1:05 and 1:25 was by del Horno.

Shaanakth and the Beatification of Benazir

At around 7 p.m. today a group of PPP jiyalas stormed the Arts Council in Karachi during the first day of the Shaanakth festival. They were protesting the exhibit of a photograph of Benazir sitting on General Zia's lap. Along with vandalising the exhibit, they also threatened the organisers with physical violence. The police was present but no would would be surprised to know that they were missing in action.

Given the situation one can hardly blame photographer Amean J, one of the organisers of the event, for apologising for displaying the photograph. But he has nothing to apologise for. It should go without saying, but sadly always bears repeating: Every Pakistai should have the right to display what they damn well please, especially when they are making a political statement.

The violent reaction reminded me, if on a smaller scale, of the furore caused by the Danish cartoons. In both cases, artists provocatively sounded off on what they saw as the totalitarian nature of their subjects. And both times, the response of the subjects in question has only proved their critics right.

For the forseeable future, we will no longer be able to do anything but place a halo over Benazir's head, especially when our views will be exposed to a mass audience. Had Shaanakth been a private event charging a thousand-rupee entry fee, this photograph would probably have not incited violence from the PPP thugs. But Shaanakth is a free festival trying to attract a wide range of Karachiites, and as such you are nor permitted to accurately depict someone who, for god's sake, was nothing more than a flawed politician.

As of now, the festival is going to ahead. I would urge all our Karachi readers to make their way to the Arts Council tomorrow. Don't let the goons score another victory.

Once Bitten, Twice Shy

A blogger on Dawn complains about the avalanche of commercial/spam texts Pakistani cell-phone subscribers are subjected to:

For its convenience and revolutionary potential, I have always enjoyed texting. Lately, however, SMS messages have become the greatest irritant in my life. Two out of every five messages I receive are spam – a gibberish amalgam of symbols and text, an advertisement, a riddle, a prayer or instructions on how to pray, a plug for a television show, a homeopathic remedy, or a solicitation from a political party.

And this, my friends, is the comment of the week, maybe year:

Atleast you never got a text message early in the morning (jolting you out of your sleep) that said “A.A. Nazia” with the subject, “Call for love”.

I will admit that the first time I did call it but then then automated lady said that the number was not in use. Now I’m wiser.

Indeed.

Pakistan's Perpetually Sick VIP Prisoners

Cricketing legend Ijaz Ahmed was arrested last month on charges of defrauding property dealers of US$130,000 by issuing fake cheques. Soon after the arrest, Mr. Ahmed was hospitalised “following a bout of asthma and breathing problems”.

Unfortunately for Mr. Ahmed his bail application has been rejected. According to Ijaj’s lawyer, “We had applied for bail on medical grounds as Ijaz was not feeling well, but the judge rejected our application.”

Mr. Ahmed, 40, is regarded by many as one of Pakistan’s finest and most stylish batsman . He is also the brother in law of the Right Honourable Saleem Malik, another unforgivable legend of the game.

I bet the judge presiding over this case is a kafir. No Muslim could be so cold hearted as to reject the plea of a Muslim brother who is so weak and meek that he has to spend his days employed as a fielding coach at the National Cricket Academy. If he wasn't so ill he would at least be an expert on Channel Five or Waqt.

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

In other news, Maverick Ferrari Shoaib Akhtar is back in the squad and ready to terrorize the Aussies. Can you think of a person more suited to be a contestant on a third rate British celeb-reality show than Shubba? (Celebrity Love Island being the obvious first choice here.) In fact, now that I think about it I’m convinced that he’ll make an appearance on one of these crap shows in the next five years.

Champions League Picks

I think I speak for most people when I say I need to not think about 17 year-olds being beaten by the Taliban or funerals for bomb victims that become bomb targets themselves. Fortunately, this week the Champions League gets underway again with the quarter finals, and provides us with a diversion. Here are my thoughts on each tie; I will be back on Wednesday evening with a report of the Barca game as well as thoughts on the other games.

Barcelona vs. Bayern Munich

As I told the W the other day: it's ON. Of course, the W rolled her eyes and then pretended she didn't know who I was (mainly because I yelled the words "it's ON!" in a crowded supermarket), but I imagine some readers share my anticipation. This tie is without a doubt the most exciting one left. Let's count the ways why:

1. Bayern are barely in the top ten in terms of goals allowed in Germany, and Barca -- when they are not controlling possession -- are quite shaky at the back (especially if Yaya Toure, the defensive midfielder to end all defensive midfielders, is still injured on Wednesday). Plus, Bayern let in 5 goals at the weekend which doesn't bode too well for them.

2. The offensive talent on display will be sick. And no, I'm not buying this playing-possum tactic which claims that Ribery is hurt. Please. We're not that fucking stupid.

3. The first leg is at Barca, and they will look to make up enough of a margin such that they can afford a so-so result in Germany next week. If the tie was reversed (i.e. if the first leg was in Munich), then my best guess is that Bayern would have looked to keep control of the midfield and play with 9 guys behind the ball, try to sneak a 1-0 (or 2-0 if they were lucky), and then take their chances at the Camp Nou. This way, the tie is guaranteed to be wide open.

Anyway, so the tie will be exciting and compelling. I know Barca have a speed bump ahead of them this season. I just don't think Bayern is it.

Prediction: Barcelona to go through 5-3 on aggregate.

Liverpool vs. Chelsea

Ugh. Nothing to say about this, except that I have learned the hard way to not pick against Rafa in Europe, unless there is a SERIOUS talent gap. The only saving grace for Chelsea might be that they have the second-leg-at-home advantage, but I don't think it will be enough.

Prediction: Liverpool to go through on away goals after tie is drawn 2-2.

Arsenal vs. Villareal

The toughest match up to call. I've gone back and forth on this a number of times. Here are the factors I've been thinking about:

In Arsenal's favor: Fabregas is back. That deserves its own bullet point.

In Villareal's favor: They have the better midfield, which is where most games are won, especially in Europe.

In Arsenal's favor: They have the second-leg-at-home advantage.

In Villareal's favor: There's something eminently self-destructive about Arsenal, or at least I perceive it to be so.

In Arsenal's favor: They're in better form: 17 games unbeaten in the league, while Villareal's latest results (latest first) are: a 3-0 loss, a 2-0 win, a 3-2 loss, a 1-0 win, a 2-2 draw, a 2-1 win, a 1-1 draw, a 2-1 win, a 3-0 loss. Does that inspire confidence in you? Me neither.

In Villareal's favor: If God is a football fan, He can't possibly want another all-English semi-final, which is what we're going to get if Arsenal go through.

Prediction: Arsenal go through 3-2 on aggregate.

Man Utd vs. Porto

Sigh. I don't want to talk about this tie, ok? Let's just get it over with.

Prediction: Man Utd go through 2-0 on aggregate.

Breaking News: Suicide Blast in Islamabad

There was a suicide blast at a Frontier Corps check post near Jinnah Supermarket in F/7. So far, one person has been killed and 15 injured. It appears that there was a group of gunmen accompanying the bomber, and they seem to have escaped.

This comes just days after the government warned that Islamabad and Lahore were going to be targeted.

I, along with a lot of our readers I suspect, had family and friends living in F/7. We pray for their safety and well-being.

I'm going to be busy for the next couple of hours so leave updates in the comments section.

It's Quite Simple Really: Pashtun = Taliban

Yeh Hum Naheen was the title of a media campaign launched by our ex-President to convince the world that Pakistanis aren't terrorists. The world was ignorant and didn't comprehend the complexity of terrorism. Bush's insistence on painting everything in black and white resulting in the larger world not realising that Pakistanis were suffering the most at the hands of Islamist terrorists.

Turns out we're not much different than the ignorant West. There is growing anger and resentment aimed towards the Taliban, and rightly so; however, this anger and resentment is now being directed towards all Pashtun. Friday Times in its latest editorial warns its readers about the Taliban and as evidence relies on testimony by the MQM.

The MQM isn't fighting the Taliban, it's fighting the Pashtun. Gun battles in the North Nazimabad hills have intensified in recent months and this is being depicted as the MQM's battle against the Taliban. My grandparents used to live in North Nazimabad in the early 90s and every time I went to stay with them I would hear gunfire coming from the hills. There were no Taliban then, just Pashtun.

The head of Admin at our office, a jolly old lady, recently interviewed a man seeking employment as a driver. He drove the car well, was presentable and had good references, but she wasn't comfortable hiring him simply because he was a Pashtun. The reason for this: the last driver, a Pashtun, was fired because he had voiced out his opinion that women shouldn't be working at our office. In the end, we offered him the job but he received a better offer from somewhere else and declined to join us. Now it may seem understandable why the Admin lady wouldn't want to hire a Pashtun but she was plain wrong.

She's not the only one who is hesitant about coming into contact with Pashtuns. Over the past few months I've heard countless people speak about Pashtuns as though they are aliens - "don't trust chowkidars, you don't know if they're Taliban."

For the past two decades the Islamists terrorising our mosques and our imambargahs have not been Pashtun, they've been Muhajir, Punjabis and Seraiki. They somehow never managed to get a bad rep. Sure, the Taliban is a different creature than the Sipah-e-Shahaba and its remnants but that doesn't mean that the Pashtun should be viewed as being synonymous with the Taliban.

President Musharraf was right to state that Pakistanis have suffered the most at the hands of Islmist terrorists. But it is also true that amongst Pakistanis, it is the Pashtun who have suffered the most at the hands of Islamist terrorists - even amongst law enforcement agencies, it is the FC that has lost the most men.

We've got to stop alienating the Pashtun, they are as much part of this country as we are need our support.

End of the Federer Era

Some people thought Roger Federer would never be the best player in the world again after he was humiliated by Rafael Nadal in last year's French Open. But Nadal was clearly superior to him on clay, and he had to yet to win any grand slam apart from the French. A lot more thought that the loss of Federer's Wimbledon crown was the last straw. But I reasoned that the Wimbledon final, where Federer came back from two sets down, showed he had the fight in him to continue to be the best. This year's Australian Open, where Nadal won his first hard court grand slam, also didn't convince me. After all it was a five-set match, with the first four being very closely fought.

But tonight I've finally accepted that Federer will never be the best player in the world again and he may not even win another grand slam. After a routine first set win against Novak Djokovic, Federer played the worst two sets I have ever seen him play. All Novak had to do was put the ball in play and wait for Federer to make an error. He made over 35 unforced errors in the two sets. And then there was this. If you ever need a symbol of Federer's decline, more even than the waterworks after the Aussie Open final, this is it.



Roger must feel like Napoleon at Elba. But there will no triumphant return in France next month.

Lost Season Five: Episode 10

I spent most of this week's episode patting myself for my brilliant predictions. There's nothing quite as satisfying as correctly guessing the twists on this show. I just knew that Kate had left Aaron with Cassidy and Clementine. I was even more convinced that Jack would have to save Ben's life once again. Finding out you're not quite as smart as you think are can be quite deflating, but at least I can take comfort in knowing that Lost is as unpredictable as ever.

- First the twists. I think we had all assumed that Kate went back to the Island for Sawyer. But she is on a mission to bring back Claire, which is a great development. First this means that we are unlikely to get bogged in a Sayer-Juliet-Kate-Jack love mess. And it added some emotional weight to the show in the scene between Kate and Claire's mom.

- We can now attribute one more character defect to Jack Shepherd. We know he's arrogant, stubborn and close-minded (or at least he was). Who knew he was also a monster-creater? If he had just agreed to operate on Little Ben he would not have grown up to become the Big Ben currently lying in a hospital. But it would be unfair to place too much blame (or maybe any at all) on Jack. As the episode's title, referencing Daniel Faraday, says, "Whatever Happened, Happened". Since I criticized his acting so much last week, I should also acknowledge how brilliant Matthew Fox was this week, especially in his refusal to operate on Ben. I didn't buy Fox's process of conversion from skeptic to believer, but now that he's in this state of mind, with a diminished leadership role, he has been excellent. And when Juliet asked him why he was back on the Island, his reply, "I don't know yet," was perfect.

- What I find most interesting about Richard taking Little Ben, is that he's going to do whatever it is he's going to do to him at the Temple. This is the place where Rosseau's companions, for want of a better description, lost their minds. Did the same happen to Ben? And does that make him any less loathsome?

- Also keep in mind that Ben was a workman at Dharma when he gassed the place, about 15 years from now. Assuming Richard sends him to work undercover, how will his disappearance and absence be explained?

- The time-travel conversation between Hurley, acting as an audience surrogate, and Miles was hilarious. And it made some things clear. The Losties are at risk and can have their future's changed but no one else can. You know what else was hilarious? When Miles said, "You all can leave if you want. But I'll shoot you in the leg."

- Man, does Kate have a big mouth. She told both Cassidy and Claire's mom about the lie. If I had to guess I would have thought Jack the most likely to blab.

- All it took was a one-minute scene to show why Michael Emerson and Terry O'Quinn are hands down the best actors on this show. The glee on Locke's face when he said "Welcome to the land of the living" and Ben's utter shock and confusion made me laugh out loud and anticipate the next episode with barely contained excitement.

- Speaking of the next episode, the file I downloaded this week had a preview of next week's Lost. I'm not going to spoil anything, but I would be very surprised if it isn't the best episode of the season.

"Our People" Put Promiscuous Teenager In Her Place By Beating Her Publicly

I could watch this video up to the 0:09 mark and no longer, but maybe there are people out there who can stomach this stuff better than me and watch the whole thing. It's the very real and public face of Sharia law in Swat (link courtesy commenter Somethingrichandstrange). I can't warn you sternly enough about how disgusting this video is, so please proceed with caution.

Does anyone actually believe that this girl actually tried to commit adultery? As Arif says, the much more likely explanation is some long-bearded motherfucker wanted to get busy with her, she resisted, and he decided to use the institutional powers bestowed upon him by this crackpot legal system -- if it can be called that -- to get his revenge.

Remember, kids: these are our people, bravely standing up to the tyranny of the West, and all they want is for US forces to leave Afghanistan.

UPDATE: Courtesy reader Tazeen in comments, this article in The Guardian has more on this video. Evidently this girl's crime was that she walked out of a house with a man other than her husband -- if you believe Taliban spokespeople, that is. Then there is this priceless quote from the story:

The woman's brother is among the men pinning her down, she added. "It's symbolic that he does it with his own hands. It gives him honour in local society, that he has done it for the sake of religion."

Is there anything left to say?

UPDATE II: The government of Pakistan -- or three quarters of it anyway -- has sprung into action. President Zardari has "strongly condemned" the act. Prime Minister Gillani has promised an inquiry into the incident, though what exactly they will be inquiring into is beyond me. And since the return of Iftikhar Chaudhary really means the return of Suo Motoness, we have a bench on the Supreme Court looking into the case.

On the one hand, it's easy to dismiss all of this as grandstanding, and I am inclined to do exactly that. Plus, one could politely tell the government that the way to avoid these situations is not to form inquiry commissions that write meaningless reports on the incident, but to not cede whole swathes of Pakistani territory to people who believe that the only problem with the episode was that it took place in public.

On the other hand, faced with a choice of a government not giving a crap about this at all, and a government actually taking notice, I'll gladly take the latter. Small victories, I know, but that's what we're used to around these parts.

NYT Interviews Zardari; Hilarity Ensues

The Pakistan President displays some of his formidable intellect in this long piece by James Traub.

We get Zardari the constitutionalist, who seems to believe that just because the constitution allows a certain measure to be taken, it is contingent upon him to take it:

"No democratic party would like to do governor's rule," he said. "It's in the Constitution; it's part of necessity."

Then we have Zardari the blatant liar, who feels it isn't enough that he was married to Benazir.

"Benazir and myself are related."

Or maybe he thinks marrying some makes you their relation. He obviously doesn't know much about marriages, believing them not to be governed by law. Here's how he describes his agreement with Nawaz Sharif:

"an agreement by consent," not "an agreement by law." It was like a marriage. It was like a merger.

How about Zardari the mangler of the English language?

“I will not comment on those things,” he said gravely, “because Islam forbids drinking.” What’s more, he added, with a show of indignation, “this description you give — who is fun-loving, who is easygoing, who is consumption of Scotching and wining and dining and dancing — why would that kind of man opt for a life that he knows for sure that he will have to go through a lot of trouble and tribulation?

Then we also get a demonstration of the contradictary nature of Zardari:

"The world philosophers," he asserted, "have come to the conclusion that aid has never been one of the best ways of developing countries." But then he scrambled his talking points and said that when he first spoke with Bush administration officials, he called for a "Marshall Plan" for Pakistan.

And my personal favourite: Zardari the philosopher king:

"Every day," he said, "man is growing and learning. What you were yesterday, you are probably not today, because today's you is yesterday's experience. One is always learning."

Fun Fact of the Day

The curator of the Museum of Hoaxes tells National Geographic about his favourite April Fool's Day prank:

Back in World War I, French air force pilots flew over German camps and threw out fake bombs with April Fool’s Day notes pinned to them. The Germans saw these things falling, scattered everywhere, crept back, and saw the notes.

An Endorsement

A controversial and charismatic politician, fighting in the country's supreme court for the right to contest elections, weighed down by past transgressions and yet bravely soldiering on, socially conservative and idiotic to a tee.

I am, of course, talking about Nawaz Sharif Sanjay Dutt.

Now, I'm not too familiar with Indian politics, so I had a little trouble deciphering the exact meaning of this quote:

"I am a law abiding citizen and I respect the court's decision," Dutt told journalists after the court order [barring him from contesting elections].

"But I'm not leaving Lucknow. This is my seat and it will remain so forever. Whoever replaces me as the candidate here, will be my candidate," he said.

If I'm reading this correctly, our friend Sanjay Dutt is trying to pull the ol' Putin-Medvedev or Kirchner-Kirchner trick. One wonders if it will work as well in Lucknow as it did in Moscow or Buenos Aires, respectively. One may also wonder who the hell cares.

Well, I do. Anyone who says stuff like "Manyataji [his wife] takes the decisions in the kitchen.. aaj biryani banegi ya phir kabab or chicken. That’s where she rules. In other matters I decide what’s to be done" and "Look, do you have a sister? Because if you do, then you’ll also know that no sister gets along with her brother’s wife. Had my mother been alive, she would’ve happily accepted Manyata. Manyata is a homemaker, just like my mother was" instantly piques my interest and, not coincidentally, wins my support.

So on behalf of the entire Five Rupees team, I am now endorsing Sanjay Dutt for whatever office he can't run for.