Five Fun Videos -- One For Every Rupee

I have been very distressed over the last twenty four hours or so, primarily consumed with the future of the Pakistani state and the irresponsible detachment with (and the willful ignorance) of Pakistan's militancy problem by the majority of its citizens and decision-making elite. With that in mind, here are five videos (four of which have been posted before on this blog) that always make me smile, irrespective of how many times I watch them.

In the first, you are admonished to not waste the time, dear.



In the second -- another music video, by the way -- Kermit the frog causes multiple turns in the grave by the late Johnny Cash.



In the third, a reporter tries unsuccessfully to file a report just the way he wants it:



In the fourth, we see that Britain may indeed have talent:



And in the fifth, Argentina treat us to an orgasmic goal:



Readers are encouraged to add their own recommendations of smile-inducing videos in the comments section.

Breaking News: Sri Lankan Cricketers Targeted In Lahore

I am at a complete loss to say something coherent about this right now. But that shouldn't stop you guys. Consider this an open thread on the topic.

UPDATE at 6:00 am GMT: I think I am sufficiently over my initial shock to make a couple of quick points.

First, Bubs reports in comments that a couple of prominent political figures have already blamed India. This is foolish for a number of reasons. First, and most important, nobody knows anything right now, and anyone who pretends to know is lying. Second, it strikes the rational observer as incredibly childish and petty ("You blamed us, so now we blame you"). Third, it is most likely untrue: it is not as if Pakistan finds itself lacking with homegrown militant groups, or does not have sufficient political violence for this to be yet another chapter in our state's morbid history. Fourth, if it is a foreign-based attack -- and I can't emphasize enough how unlikely I deem that scenario -- then it is more likely to have originated from Sri Lanka than India.

The second point I want to make is that whenever incidents like this happen, the nameless and faceless people who lost their lives protecting others always get forgotten (if they were ever remembered in the first place). Reports indicate five policemen died in the attack protecting the convoy. They deserve our thanks.

The third point I want to make is that international cricket is dead in Pakistan for the medium term, at best. Before this incident, defenders of Pakistan's right (privilege?) to host cricket matches used the argument, among others, that claimed that political violence could happen anywhere and that it was a random occurrence. To paraphrase Orwell, it is now clear to the international cricketing world that some acts of political violence are more random than others.

UPDATE at 6:52 am GMT: I recall a conversation I had with AKS in the summer of 2007, immediately after the Lal Masjid attacks. AKS opined that from a strategic/long-term perspective, it might be better if the Lal Masjiders did as much damage as possible. AKS' thinking (at the time; I don't think he subscribes to these views any longer) was that the more Pakistanis see the damage and destruction that is wrought by militants, the more they will appropriate ownership of this war -- instead of calling it "America's war" or something else similarly inane.

I am reminded of that argument today because nothing binds Pakistanis quite like the love of cricket, and if anything was going to convince the majority of pundits, public figures, and average Pakistanis of the threat of capitulation or indifference in this struggle, it would be an attack on cricket(ers). And yet I am willing to bet anything that the prepetrators of today's crime against Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and the sport of cricket, will not engender any form of ownership of this war, or any realization of the threat that the state faces from these groups (assuming that the Taliban or one of its offshoots was responsible). Instead, either India or America will be nonsensically blamed, retreats will be made into comfortable preconceived world views, and that favorite machine of Pakistanis will be switched on at full throttle: the conspiracy theory churner.

UPDATE at 7:09 GMT: I am going to try to get some sleep because I have to teach tomorrow morning. I am sure Bubs and AKS will try to keep things rolling as far as coverage on this blog is concerned.

UPDATE at 9:30 pm GMT: I would like to make another quick point on this issue (a point similar to this was made in the comments section). Reading the reactions -- on both news and sport websites and newspapers -- I cannot escape the impression that many observers thought of cricket as a sacred cow; as substantively different from all the other potential targets in Pakistan. "They would never attack sport" went the line. My question, obviously aided by hindsight, is: why? Why did people (including myself) think that athletes were somehow different? If funerals can be suicide-bombed, and girls' schools can be blown up, and political processions can be attacked, and Shia mosques can be destroyed, then why exactly are sports and sports figures a different kettle of fish?

The answer, of course, is that they are not.

Look Who's Talking

The best thing about the written word is that, under most circumstances, it doesn't go anywhere: it is constant, and remains in its original form and substance for future readers to examine and judge. Here is Condoleeza Rice -- then foreign affairs adviser to then candidate George W. Bush -- in the January 2000 issue of Foreign Affairs criticizing Bill Clinton's war in Kosovo:

If there is any lesson from history, it is that small powers with everything to lose are often more stubborn than big powers, for whom the conflict is merely one among many problems. The lesson, too, is that if it is worth fighting for, you had better be prepared to win. Also, there must be a political game plan that will permit the withdrawal of our forces -- something that is still completely absent in Kosovo.

Indeed.

Quote of the Day

Courtesy The Guardian:

Speaking this evening ahead of tomorrow's Six Nations match against England at Croke Park, O'Driscoll was asked what it was like to have played with the England coach, Martin Johnson, during their time together with the British and Irish Lions, and now to be on opposing sides.

His reply? "Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit; wisdom is knowing not to put it in a fruit salad."

Explanations, please?

Whoever Wrote This Editorial For The News Clearly Smoked Some Excellent Garda* Prior To Writing It

Tell me I'm wrong. Just look at the way it starts:

The original definition of the word ‘drone’ was … ‘A male bee, especially a honeybee, that is characteristically stingless, performs no work, and produces no honey. Its only function is to mate with the queen bee.’ The drones that potter about in our skies these days are hardly stingless, they seem to work hard and the ‘honey’ they produce is the body-count at the end of their missions. Hitherto they have been invaders of our sovereignty, violators of our airspace and all-round naughty drones much in need of having their bottoms spanked by the Pakistan Air Force. Except that these naughty drones, far from creeping covertly over our borders to do their dirty work, set off from hives within our homeland as revealed courtesy of the poor-mans spook Google Earth last week. Nobody’s sovereignty is being invaded as the little devils are here with our by-your-leave, our guests, even.

*Garda=a type of hashish (from what I hear)

A Poll That Speaks For Itself (And Pakistan's Web-Surfing Population)

Please don't ask me why or how I went on this website. Just be thankful that I found this poll on it:


Oh dear.

Deep Thought Of The Day

You know what's worse than taking a lead and then relinquishing it? Doing it twice. And you know what's worse than that? Having one of the leads you give up be a two-goal one. And you know what's worse than that? Giving up a lead with two minutes to go.

Barcelona have now failed to win in four games (two losses, two draws). Four -- incidentally -- also happens be the number of points that now separates Barca from Real. It was twelve two weekends ago.

Gulp.

Lost Season Five: Episode Seven

I find myself in a strange position. I think 'The Life and Death of Jeremy Bentham' was the best episode of the season - maybe one of the best in the show's history - and yet I don't have much to say beyond "Terry O'Quinn....OMG, WOW!!!"

About once a season, Lost does an episode that is more concerned with character than plot and mystery. When the character in question is Jack or Kate, the episode is usually a bummer. But take the acting skills of Terry O' Quinn and you have a classic on your hands.

The first time I saw this episode, I found Locke's meetings with Said, Hurley and Kate slightly dull. His attempts to convince them to return to the island seemed perfunctory. It was only after Jack told Locke that he may not be someone important, that I realized Locke wasn't convinced that he was doing the right thing. The Locke we see in this episode is a broken man, forced back temporarily into his wheelchair, unsure of who he can trust. Locke figures out that he is not a saviour, at best he is a pawn being played by both Widmore and Ben.

Terry O' Quinn's acting here is so spot-on that he even manages to elevate the performances of Matthew Fox and Evangeline Lilly. Kate has never been better than when she asks Locke if he has ever loved anyone.

And then there's Ben. O'Quinn doesn't need to elevate the always fantastic Michael Emerson; their scenes together are always mesmerising, perhaps none more so than in this episode. We all know Ben is a masterful manipulator, but has he ever faced a bigger challenge than restoring Locke's sense of self-worth and dissuading him from killing himself. That Ben turns around and kills Locke may have been inevitable but Emerson's performance was so perfect that I was nonetheless shocked.

The 18th century philosipher John Locke believed in natural law, that science and faith could coexist. The Objectivist Jeremy Bentham mocked that theory, having no time for mysticism. In one episode and one mesmerising peformance, Terry O' Quinn made that most improbable of transformations.

Note: I wanted this review to be all about the acting, so all the geeky stuff can be thrashed out in the comments. Feel free to theorize on what role Walt may play in the future, the true motivations of Widmore and Ben, who the two new characters are and how exactly Locke was reserrected. You all can also mourn the early demise of Abbaddon.

More Political Instability: Just What The Doctor Ordered

I can see why Asif Zardari might look at Pakistan's war with the Taliban, collapsing economy, downturn in relations with India, militant activity that has claimed the lives of hundreds of innocents, and think: wait a minute! We need more crises here! The party's just getting started!

Let's be serious for a second, because Asif Zardari sure as hell won't be. I want to make three points in this post. First, I want to talk about what "democracy" as a political dispensation really means. Second, I want to talk about how little Asif Zardari cares about this thing we call "democracy". Third, I want to talk about how Asif Zardari is kind of an asshole on a purely personal level.

1. What does "democracy" mean?

Last summer, I took my qualifying exam in Comparative Politics, and one of the two topics I dealt with was democratization. One thing that struck me reading all those books and articles was how little consensus there is on the big questions in the process of democratization, and the concept of democracy more generally. There is disagreement, for instance, on whether democracy should refer to the mere holding of free and fair elections, or whether it should also entail certain societal freedoms. There is disagreement on whether the primary causal factors in states becoming democratic are culturally given, economically given, institutionally given, or social-structurally given. There is disagreement on whether democratization is an elite-led or middle class-led phenomenon.

What there is little disagreement on, however, is the fact that democracy involves limits on power. It entails a circumscribed notion of what leaders can do once they gain the important executive and legislative offices of the land. It implies that individuals can only go so far before their will is subject to institutions or checks and balances. Democracy, then, is best understood as a balance of legal power at the national level.

2. Asif Zardari does not care about democracy

For all the nonsense about democracy being the best revenge, and all the meaningless platitudes that Zardari has peddled in the Western press about a return to parliamentary supremacy, let one thing be absolutely clear: Asif Zardari has no interest whatsoever in limits on power. Six months ago, Hussain Haqqani Zardari penned the following lines in the Washington Post:

If I am elected president, one of my highest priorities will be to support the prime minister, the National Assembly and the Senate to amend the constitution to bring back into balance the powers of the presidency and thereby reduce its ability to bring down democratic governance.

Evidently, this priority was not high enough. Anyone expecting otherwise was and remains a complete fool. This includes our charming Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gillani.

Associates of Mr. Gilani say the prime minister has grown frustrated at Mr. Zardari's failure to fulfill his promise to reduce the presidency to its traditional role as head of state, allowing the prime minister to take a bigger role in decision-making and appointments.

Really? Did Gillani honestly expect otherwise? If he did, then he's dumber than I originally thought, and let me tell you, that's really saying something.

The sidelining of Amin Fahim and Aitzaz Ahsan, the continued allergy to an Iftikhar Chaudhry-led Supreme Court, the choice of Salman Taseer to play spoiler in Punjab -- these are all instances (among many) of Asif Zardari being concerned first and foremost with solidifying and extending his control of both the PPP and the country at large.

It is safe to say, then, that Asif Zardari is not concerned with limits on power. This is another way of saying that Asif Zardari is not concerned with democracy.

Sidenote: about four or five weeks ago, a student in a class I TA raised her hand. We had been talking about formal models (game theoretic analyses of politics writ large) in the preceding fifteen minutes or so. Now, those who know me well know my methodological biases against game theory: I think -- to put it kindly -- that it is a crock of shit.

Anyway, this girl raised her hand and started railing against some of the assumptions made in these formal models. One quibble she had was with the fact that many formal models assume explicitly that leaders care most (or only) about staying in power. "I don't think that's a very realisitic assumption," she sniffed. "Leaders care about their populations too." I told her: "Look, I'm with you on the general fact that assumptions in formal models are unrealistic. But I think there is scant evidence to suggest that leaders care about the people they govern in any meaningful way. You can disagree with me, but I just don't think it's true."

I'm glad I have Asif Zardari around to prove me right, once in a while. If ever we needed evidence that the well-being of the average Pakistani is not of concern to Asif Zardari, his providing impetus to a very real risk of even greater political destabilization of Pakistan at this juncture in out history has provided it.

3. Asif Zardari is an unpleasant person

We have the Wall Street Journal to thank for these remarkable tidbits (and Nabeel, no doubt, for sending me the link). I will simply copy and paste the relevant excerpts here; there is little need for me to comment.

Since taking over the presidency last September, Mr. Zardari has surrounded himself with a small cadre of advisers, many of them unelected, including family members and associates whom Mr. Zardari got to know in jail or in exile, leaving even government officials unsure of who runs what. Among the members of Mr. Zardari's inner circle: his former physician, Dr. Asim Hussain, who in addition to running a hospital in Karachi is the government's adviser on petroleum affairs and runs the oil ministry, despite having no background in the industry.

And:

At meetings in recent months, according to several witnesses, he lashed out at senior ministers, calling one a "witch" and another "impotent."

And, with more detail on the "impotent" claim:

At a meeting in mid-January, Mr. Zardari taunted Sen. Raza Rabbani, Pakistan's provincial coordination minister, calling him "impotent" after the two disagreed on how to approach allied political parties about running certain candidates in upcoming Senate elections. "You always say no, and that is a reason why you don't have children," the president told the 55-year-old senator, according to multiple witnesses.

In previous meetings, Mr. Zardari has called a senior cabinet minister a "witch" on many occasions. He has told others to "shut up" or mocked their personal foibles, divorces, affairs. "This is what you come to expect at the presidency. You go there and you are insulted," said another senator who was at the mid-January meeting.

Good times.

Thoughts on the Nawaz-Zardari Saga

Reasonable people can disagree over the legality of the Supreme Court’s decision to declare Nawaz and Shahbaz Sharif ineligible to stand for election. As it happens, I am far more interested in the political fall-out of this decision. I must confess that I have no clue what is going to happen next. At best, I can lay out certain scenarios. The fickle loyalties of Pakistani politicians will determine which of these scenarios plays out. The only thing I can say with certainty is this: the status-quo, with the PPP-led coalition governing from the centre and a PML-N government sans Shahbaz in the Punjab, cannot last another four years.

Firstly, Nawaz has been praised in certain quarters for his refusal to bend his principles. This is a debatable proposition, but there is no denying that his intransigence has left him without any major allies. His two most vociferous supporters, the Jamaat-e-Islami and Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaaf, boycotted last year’s elections and are bereft of any meaningful political power. The JI’s ability to gather crowds (an exaggerated ability but one that does exist) is nothing compared to the seats the now-defunct MMA had in the previous National Assembly. The PML-N’s refusal to meet with Chaudhry Shujaat and create an opening for a PPP-PMLQ alliance was also a costly mistake and one that the party may be regretting.

The PML-Q, supposedly in tatters after its dismal showing in the elections, now holds the balance of power in Pakistan. They have two options: to join hands with the PML-N to bring down the PPP in the centre or ally itself with the PPP to pass a no-confidence motion against the Punjab government. If it chooses the latter, I suspect the PML-Q will demand the chief ministership in return for its votes. Prepare yourselves for the return of CM Pervez Elahi, or even more horrifying, CM Moonis Elahi. The PML-Q has the third option of doing nothing, but I see no reason, besides stupidity, for it not to take advantage of its relative importance. Congratulations Asif Zardari and Nawaz Sharif. Your inability to look beyond your narrow interests has revitalized a moribund party.

If there is one true villain in this saga, I would like to nominate Punjab Governor Salmaan Taseer. He could have defused the situation to some extent by reconvening the Punjab Assembly and allowing the PML-N to vote for a new chief minister. Instead he decided to impose Governor’s rule for two months. And when the PML-N MPAs attempted to meet at the Assembly, he forcibly kept them out, forcing them to gather under a staircase in the building, thereby allowing the PML-N to move to an even higher moral ground.

Will the army, surely looking on in delight as this drama plays out, ultimately decide who the victor is? Its hard to find out what the army is thinking right now but its intentions should become clear pretty soon. Another wild-card is Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gillani. Recent reports suggest that he is disgruntled about playing second-fiddle to President Zardari. Even de-facto Interior Minister Rehman Malik and Communications Minister Sherry Rehman seem to outrank him. Gillani has also made some sympathetic noises towards the PML-N. Will he have the courage to oppose Zardari and come out in favour of the PML-N.

Either way, everything will have to sort itself out within a month. One-third of the current senators will be replaced in March and the PML-Q will lose many seats to the PPP, making it harder to pass a no-confidence motion against the sitting government.

David Brooks Rediscovers His Burkean Epistemological Modesty Six Years After Supporting The Iraq War

Now I love David Brooks' writing as much as anyone, but surely no one can possibly be this self-unaware. The level of unintentional irony dripping in his latest op-ed is hard to express.

Let's begin at the beginning. First, Brooks tells us he read Burke in college:

When I was a freshman in college, I was assigned “Reflections on the Revolution in France” by Edmund Burke. I loathed the book. Burke argued that each individual’s private stock of reason is small and that political decisions should be guided by the accumulated wisdom of the ages. Change is necessary, Burke continued, but it should be gradual, not disruptive.

Excellent. So Brooks read Burke in college.

Next, we're told that social engineering projects - those that rely on quick and non-gradual change - have a terrible historical record:

Over the years, I have come to see that Burke had a point. The political history of the 20th century is the history of social-engineering projects executed by well-intentioned people that began well and ended badly. There were big errors like communism, but also lesser ones, like a Vietnam War designed by the best and the brightest, urban renewal efforts that decimated neighborhoods, welfare policies that had the unintended effect of weakening families and development programs that left a string of white elephant projects across the world.

Ok, I'm with you there. Unintended consequences and all that.

Next, Brooks waxes eloquent about the virtues of doubt and epistemological modesty; how important it is, in other words, to know how little we know:

These experiences drove me toward the crooked timber school of public philosophy: Michael Oakeshott, Isaiah Berlin, Edward Banfield, Reinhold Niebuhr, Friedrich Hayek, Clinton Rossiter and George Orwell. These writers — some left, some right — had a sense of epistemological modesty. They knew how little we can know. They understood that we are strangers to ourselves and society is an immeasurably complex organism. They tended to be skeptical of technocratic, rationalist planning and suspicious of schemes to reorganize society from the top down.

Finally, Brooks brings the circle to a close by telling us how wary he remains of Barack Obama's agenda of wholesale change:

Readers of this column know that I am a great admirer of Barack Obama and those around him. And yet the gap between my epistemological modesty and their liberal worldviews has been evident over the past few weeks. The people in the administration are surrounded by a galaxy of unknowns, and yet they see this economic crisis as an opportunity to expand their reach, to take bigger risks and, as Obama said on Saturday, to tackle every major problem at once.

Ok, so to recap: doubt good, wholesale societal change bad.

What a difference six years makes, eh? Let's see what David Brooks had to say about those who had doubt about, um, a scheme to reorganize society from the top down:

The American commentariat is gravely concerned. Over the past week, George W. Bush has shown a disturbing tendency not to waffle when it comes to Iraq. There has been an appalling clarity and coherence to his position. There has been a reckless tendency not to be murky, hesitant, or evasive. Naturally, questions are being raised about President Bush's leadership skills.

Meanwhile, among the smart set, Hamlet-like indecision has become the intellectual fashion.[...]

In certain circles, it is not only important what opinion you hold, but how you hold it. It is important to be seen dancing with complexity, sliding among shades of gray. Any poor rube can come to a simple conclusion -- that President Saddam Hussein is a menace who must be disarmed--but the refined ratiocinators want to be seen luxuriating amid the difficulties, donning the jewels of nuance, even to the point of self-paralysis.

As far as I gather, if Brooks is correct, it is important to be held back by Burkean doubt when (a) the society being reorganized is American, and (b) the person doing the reorganizing is Barack Obama. On the other hand, doubt and indecision is to be mercilessly mocked when (a) the society being reorganized is Iraqi, and (b) the person doing the reorganizing is George W. Bush.

Put differently, if you actually have a mandate and support for reorganization ("Change"), then you should not pursue that reorganization. But if you have no legal, moral, or strategic reason to reorganize ("War in Iraq"), then you should pursue that reorganization.

Have I missed something?

Barcelona 1 - Lyon 1

I'll take it. I'll bloody well take it. Here are my thoughts on today's game:

1. If Barcelona win the Champions League this year - along with La Liga - there will be many heroes and contributing figures. Victor Valdes will belong in neither of those categories. He can make spectacular saves at times, to be sure. But his positioning and silly mistakes could (and have) seriously cost Barca. Over the weekend, he gifted Ivan de la Pena Espanyol's second, when the game was still in the balance. Today, he came forward to an admittedly wicked freekick from the maestro (Juninho) before realizing he really should have gone back. Of course, by then, it was too late. One nil down inside seven minutes, and Valdes once again showing that he is the worst keeper of Europe's top teams.


Barcelona have to be one of the few teams whose excellent defensive record has nothing whatsoever to do with their defence. At some point, Laporta and Beguiristainet are going to have to seriously consider spending some big money on a big goalkeeper, because this fellow is an idiot.

2. Give credit to Henry. He's clearly lost pace, he's clearly lost some of his striking ability, but he's an astute and intelligent player who often happens to be in the right place at the right time. He's a shadow of his former self, to be sure, but he's still an asset (though all bets are off if Ribery is available over the summer). During a period of increased pressure from Barca, they won a corner, which Marquez guided to the far post, which Henry duly deposited away with a diving header. One one at sixty seven minutes, and suddenly Barca had broken through. He's had a lot of moments like this over the season - seemingly in and out of the game, suddenly scoring or assisting a key goal - and deserves credit.

3. Speaking of giving credit, give credit to Lyon. They played a very interesting game tactically - they got in Barcelona's face, they challenged them high up the pitch, they were very quick and threatening on the counter, and they constantly used Karim Benzema (an absolute beast) as a pressure release valve. They didn't really allow Barcelona to settle in the first 35 minutes or so, and full credit to them for that. They showed up to play, which is more than what I can say for, ahem, some teams. This tie is by no means over; Barca may have the all-important away goal, but what Benzema showed me today is that you can't give him an inch of daylight. And, as always, Juninho is deadly in dead-ball situations (no pun intended), so Lyon are still very much in this.

4. I have said this before, but I'll say it again: no team tires you out like Barcelona. They regularly keep the ball for 60-65% of games, even against good and great sides. They keep you chasing shadows, and eventually simply wear you down. I heard one of the commentators mention today that close to one-third of their league goals this season have come in the last 15 minutes of play. That is not a coincidence - it is simply the opponents efforts' flagging as the constant defending and running takes its toll.

5. One encouraging sign, especially given last year's disastrous season, was Barcelona's ability to get back in the game (a) after going a goal down, and (b) despite not playing at their best. This is all Guardiola. Under him, the team has a steely disposition that was simply absent in Rijkaard's last two years.



Today, a number of important players - including Messi, Eto'o, Henry and Dani Alves - were below their best. And yet they stuck to the task and kept knocking on the door, eventually getting the equalizer. It bodes well for the rest of the season that they can salvage something from games like these, because they sure as hell didn't last year.

6. Speaking of Pep, he had a mixed game. I thought it was interesting that he changed things up in the second half, switching Eto'o and Messi in their roles (Messi playing a more central role; Eto'o switching to the right), primarily - I suppose - to give Messi more attacking options (he was crowded the entire game). This brought back memories of the dream 05-06 season, when Eto'o, Messi and Ronaldinho would regularly switch positions, leaving teams confused and in disarray as far as formation goes. Guardiola, as far as I have seen, is less experimental, but he brought it out today after an underwhelming first half, and it worked.

That said, I simply did not understand the Busquets selection. Look, the kid is a good young player, but should he be starting an away game in the friggin' Champions League? I don't think so. Frankly, he looked out of his depth. I would have much preferred Keita to play - indeed, the latter came on for Busquets in the second half - or even Gudjohnsen, with Hleb and/or Busquets possible substitutions. Maybe I'm being harsh, but I certainly did not see anything that warranted Busquets' selection.
____________________________________________________________________

Other results on Tuesday:

Manchester United 0 - Inter Milan 0 (I think Inter will be happy they walked away with a draw after that first half)
Roma 0 - Arsenal 1 (Enough of a lead to take back to Italy?)
Athletico Madrid 2 - Porto 2 (Athletico done and dusted, correct?)

Consider the comments section an open thread on Tuesday's and Wednesday's results.

UPDATE: Wednesday's results:

Real Madrid 0 - Liverpool 1 (They've done it again, haven't they?)
Villareal 1 - Panathinakos 1 (No way Villareal is getting a result in Greece)
Sporting Lisbon 0 - Bayern Munich 5 (Keep your pants on, Adeel, it's only Sporting)
Chelsea 1 - Juventus 0 (See Roma-Arsenal comment above)

Comment away.

Oscar Predictions

Unlike Ahsan I know next to nothing about football, so I'm going to limit my predictions to pop culture. Here is who's going to win and who should win at the Oscars tonight. I've cheated a bit in my who should win picks by including movies that haven't been nominated.

Best Movie

Who Should Win: The Wrestler
Who Will Win: Slumdog Millionaire

Best Director
Who Should Win: Charlie Kaufman for Synecdoche, New York
Who Will Win: Danny Boyle for Slumdog Millionaire

Best Actor
Who Should Win: Mickey Rourke for The Wrestler
Who Will Win: Mickey Rourke for The Wrestler

Best Actress:
Who Should Win: Anne Hathaway for Rachel Getting Married
Who Will Win: Kate Winslett for The Reader

Best Supporting Actor
Who Should Win: Heath Ledger for The Dark Knight
Who Will Win: Heath Ledger for The Dark Knight

Best Supporting Actress
Who Should Win: Marisa Tomei for The Wrestler
Who Will Win: Penelope Cruz for Vicki Cristina Barcelona

Best Documentary
Who Should Win: Man on Wire
Who Will Win: Man on Wire

Best Song
Who Should Win: Bruce Springsteen for The Wrestler
Who Will Win: A.R. Rahman for Jai Ho

Best Original Screenplay
Who Should Win: Wall-E
Who Will Win: Milk

Best Adapted Screenplay
Who Should Win: Slumdog Millionaire
Who Will Win: Slumdog Millionaire

Champions League Picks

Finally. It's here. The first knockout round of the Champions League, after a too-long hiatus. Here are my picks:

1. Porto over Athletico
2. Barca over Lyon
3. Arsenal over Roma
4. Inter over Man U
5. Real over Liverpool
6. Juve over Chelsea
7. Villareal over Panathinakos Panathinakos over Villareal
8. Bayern over Sporting

Discuss in comments below.

Pakistan in Pictures

The Boston Globe has posted a collection of 40 absolutely stunning photographs from Pakistan. Check them out here.

Photo Credit: Athar Hussain/Reuters

Deep Thought Of The Day

Seven points seems like a decent lead only if you forget that it was twelve two weeks ago.

Microsoft-Word-Changing-The-English-Language Watch

According to the red squiggly line Nazi, "clientelism" is no longer a word.

Lost Season Five: Episode 6

In many ways this week's Lost was extremely predictable. We knew that some or all of the Oceanic 6 would make it back to the island; hell it's been obvious since the season three finale nearly 2 years ago. Yet '316' was filled with enough suspense and new questions to be among the better episodes of this season. And we got a classic Ben performance.

- Nice callback to the opening scene of the first ever Lost episode. Jack stranded alone in the jungle before he hears a voice calling for help. This was an episode for the old-timers as we got plenty of echos to the first season.

- There were some great touches as the Oceanic 6 (now Oceanic 5, but more on that later) tried to recreate the events that lead to the crash of Flight 815. We had Locke as Christian Shepherd, Sayid taking Kate's place as he was escorted onto the place in handcuffs, Jack arguing at the check-in counter about a coffin as he did when he was taking his father's body back to LA, Hurley carrying a guitar just like Charlie did and even Ben mimicking Hurley's late arrival.

- We didn't learn too much about the two other passengers but you can be sure they will have a significant role to play. The woman escorting Sayid is played by Zuleikha Robinson of Rome fame and the guy who commiserated with Jack over Locke's death is played by Said Tuaghmaoui. Apart from sharing a name with Mr Jerrah, Tuaghmaoui was also in the movie Three Kings, where he played a torturer for the Saddam Hussein regime. I bet that's the only reason the Lost guys cast him. Chances are these two are Widmore's men although they could just be Ben's henchmen.


- So, where the hell is Aaron? My guess is that Kate didn't want to bring him back to the island, so she dropped him off with the one person she could trust. If, as most people speculated at the time, what Sawyer whispered in Kate's ear as he jumped off the helicopter was that she should find his daughter Clementine, it is possible that Aaron has a new playmate. Or he could have been killed. Really, anything's possible.

- Who or what convinced Hurley, Sayid and Kate to go back to the island? I don't know about the latter two but I wouldn't be surprised if Charlie's ghost told Hurley to go back to the island.

- Ben got off some great lines this episode, none better than his reply to Jack's question, "How can you be reading?" Ben's retort: "My mother taught me." Given that his mother died in childbirth, it's obvious that the bugger can't stop lying even in the most inconsequential situations.

- Lapidus really needs to get his beard back.

- Here's what everyone wants to know: did Ben kill Penny? I'm going to so no because I can't contemplate the show without Desmond and Penny. I'm sure Ben tried but I hope Desmond beat the crap out of him.

- Interesting that Ben was reading James Joyce's Ulysses on the plane. Ulysses is hugely influenced by Homer's Odyssey, in which the main character remains faithful all his life to a woman named Penelope. I knew that English degree would come in useful someday.

- Back when the Faraday, Sawyer and the others moved into the future and found the raft, there was a water bottle with the Ajira Airways logo. Which just happens to the airline the Oceanic 5 were flying. I guess this means the Losties are now shooting at each other. Or there were other people on the plane (Widmore's men?) who want them dead.

- Why did Jin not recognize Jack, Hurley and Kate? Is he working undercover for the Dharma Initiative and he didn't want to have his cover blown? Or is this some time travelling kink?

- Finally, something uber-geeky I learned from the forums. This episode was titled '316' after the number of the flight the Oceanic 5 took. They would never have taken the flight had it not been for John Locke. Do you know what John 3:16 says? "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." Make of this what you will. John Locke as Jesus, Locke and the other's getting eternal life or just a load of bullshit. Your guess is as good as mine.

-

YouTube of the Day

A US soldier dresses down an Iraqi police battalion. I wonder how accurately the translator communicated the American's sentiments.

Random Stuff (Not Just Links) That I Found Funny

First of all, the NYT has gotten its own columnists confused:


Since when did Kristof grow that ugly-ass beard?

Moving along, please check out this priceless quote from Nicklas Bendtner:

''I'm very sorry to see Adebayor injured as we need him fit and to be playing in the league,'' he told the Daily Mirror. ''But it does not really matter to me who is fit and available.

''I should start every game, I should be playing every minute of every match and always be in the team.''

Staying on our sports-related theme, Kamran Akmal has managed to maintain his spot in Pakistan's test team. Actually, this item is more tragicomic than purely funny. I'm really wondering whose sister Akmal has to fuck to finally get dropped.

Hilarious piece in The Onion.

Monica has a funny post on the G8 summit/international frat party.

I could have sworn I had more stuff in the memory bank but it's late so I'm going to bed.