How Many Different Ways Has George W. Bush's Presidency Chastened Americans?

My new favorite NYT columnist, Gail Collins, lists one:

The debate, a thoughtful and polite discussion of the issues, didn’t make for political drama, but it did remind you that these three can be rather likable people.

But not too likable. The election is “not going to be an issue of, you know, who’s got the nicest smile or, you know, who’s going to be fun to have a beer with,” said Obama, to general agreement.

Likability has become another one of those qualities that used to be desirable in a candidate until it started reminding us of how we got George W. Bush. We’re not falling for that likable-guy trap again. No siree. From now on we want the kind of person you would try to avoid standing next to in a long line at the supermarket.

If 500 Militants Faced Off Against 500 Pakistani Soldiers, Who Would Win?

It's a legitimate question in my mind because, as of right now, our troops appear to be quite crappy. I know there's no way in hell I could do their job, but there's no way in hell I could do Imran Farhat's either, and that never stopped me from criticizing him. I awoke to the news that militants stormed a fort - a fort! - in South Waziristan occupied by paramilitary forces, and took it over. Aren't forts supposed to favor the defender? Why are our highly trained, roti-and-water troops (in Musharraf's words), losing battles so regularly to these nutjobs? What the hell is going on?

I also love the military spokesman's line on the troops that died (by current count, about 8 with the whereabouts of 15 unknown): he said they "embraced martyrdom". You can call them shaheed but please don't say they "embraced martyrdom". They didn't embrace anything, except for a chance to provide for their families and perhaps become something some day. They most definitely did not embrace the idea of guarding 200 year-old forts in cold, dry conditions in the middle of tribal areas surrounded by psycho bearded fucks who want them - and the state - dead.

Anyway, this news made me think of an article in the NYT a couple of days ago, pulled up from the Department of No Shit, Sherlock, which said that the ISI has lost control of the militancy it once engendered. You think? One of these days, the NYT might actually supply us with information that is, broadly speaking, useful.

Speaking of providing useful information, recall NB's post on Nicholas Schmidle, a brilliant journalist who got down and dirty with events on the ground. As NB told us, he was expelled by the government, probably because his stories didn't shine such a flattering light on the government. Anyway, he had a statement or two to the BBC yesterday, and he sounds like a really nice guy. See for yourself:

His eyes almost light up when asked about the people of Pakistan.

Both he and his wife now speak Urdu and say it was almost like a honeymoon for them as they went there just two months after their marriage.

'Hospitality'

Mr Schmidle says his friends, his cook, security guard and all those who put so much on the line during their past few days were in tears when they left.

"It was actually more difficult to say goodbye to them than saying goodbye to my parents when I left two years ago," he says.

He says people may dislike American policy but when it comes to Americans or people from anywhere else the sense of hospitality is unbelievable.

"Hospitality triumphs over everything in Pakistan... they are the best people in the world," says his wife, Rikki, who had enrolled for Islamic studies at university in Pakistan and missed her Arabic exam because of the deportation.

So, would they like to go back?

"Inshallah [God willing]," they almost reply in the same voice.

Pakistan: Where We Throw Out Those Who Like Us.

Well, At Least This Trial Will Be More Entertaining Than "U.S. Marshals"

From the NYT today:

From 1999 to 2004, the actor Wesley Snipes earned $38 million appearing in more than half a dozen movies, including two sequels to his popular vampire thriller “Blade.”

The taxes he paid in the same period? Zero.

But unlike other celebrities who find themselves on the wrong side of the Internal Revenue Service, Mr. Snipes has a flamboyant explanation: he argues that he is not actually required to pay taxes.

Mr. Snipes, who is scheduled to go on trial Monday in Ocala, Fla., has become an unlikely public face for the antitax movement, whose members maintain that Americans are not obligated to pay income taxes and that the government extracts taxes from its citizens illegally.

Wait, there's more.

His involvement with the tax resistance movement may stem from his association with the Nuwaubians, a quasi-religious sect of black Americans who promote antigovernment theories and who set up a headquarters in Georgia in the early 1990s.

In 2000, Mr. Snipes sought a federal permit for a military training compound on land next to the Nuwaubian camp; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms rejected the request.

By the way, if you're wondering why I'm not blogging about the bomb blast in Karachi or the fact that the Rangers are now guarding wheat supplies, it's because I have nothing left to say. Honestly. I know it's the easy thing to do, and that it's all-too convenient for people like me sitting from afar, but I can't follow this shit anymore. I know for a fact people who know more about Anna Nicole Smith than Angela Merkel live a happier life. Well, I'm going to try their way now. I need a break from reality.

A Very Wide Ranging Interview Of Musharraf

There's a lot said in this Newsweek interview of President Musharraf by Fareed Zakaria, much of it a rehearsed back-and-forth between Western journalists and people tied to the establishment in Pakistan. As usual, it by and large focuses on elections and the security situation in Pakistan. While important issues, I wish these high-flying journalists who are lucky enough to get a sit-down with Mush would ask him questions relating to subjects that are important to Pakistanis but are never raised because he never actually talks to Pakistani journalists at length. Like: food shortages, rampant inflation, and shortfalls in electricity supply, for starters.

Anyway, go read the interview, it's a good way to kill 5-10 minutes. I can promise you there's definitely one laugh-out-loud line in there (it's do with, of all things, chocolate).

First Sugar, Then Flour, Now Rice

We keep this up, and pretty soon there's not going to be anything left to eat. From today's Dawn:

ISLAMABAD, Jan 11: With the flour crisis deteriorating by the day, officials and analysts are raising the spectre of a looming shortage of rice.

Analysts say that unchecked exports of rice are threatening to create a serious shortage. In November 2007 alone, the export of rice witnessed a growth of over 19 per cent. Figures for Dec 2007 are not available as yet.

The rice shortage is being experienced all over south and east Asia.

A source in the finance ministry said that former prime minister Shaukat Aziz had allowed export of 0.5 million tons of wheat at $200 a ton on a projection of a 0.8 million surplus stocks in May but the agreement was now importing at more than $500 a ton to meet the rising local demand.

Other rice-producing countries in the region, such as India and Vietnam, have taken measures to discourage export. However, Islamabad has not taken any action so far.

If increase in the export of rice was not checked, sound an expert, shortage of another food grain would be impossible to avert.

UPDATE: In response to a commenter's question on why no one does anything about hoarding, here's a report from The News on the institution of an anti-hoarding body. While I highly doubt a bureaucratic body is going to stop hoarding on the scale that we're seeing, it is something. Though as someone once said, never mistake activity for achievement.

Reading List Of The Day

An interesting piece of side news. Nicholas Schmidle, a freelance journalist who reports for the New York times, Slate and the Washington Post (amongst others), has been expelled from Pakistan on the grounds that he was reporting without a journalist visa.

In 2007, Schmidle spent a considerable amount of time reporting on Abdul Rashid Ghazi (of the Lal Masjid Fame, and brother of the idiotic Aunty Maulvi). From Schmidle's own writing it appears that the relationship with Ghazi enabled him to build upon his contacts and list of potential interviewees. From this article following Ghazi's death in July, he wrote the following:

"[Ghazi] was always willing to share the phone numbers of his mullah friends in other Pakistani cities. Having a personal reference from Ghazi was like having a backstage pass to the wild world of radical Islam."

Schmidle since put that backstage pass to constructive use. While he also covered the lawyer's movement for the restoration of the Chief Justice, his articles regarding militant 'Islamism' were the more informative. Schmidle tends to keep his analysis/commentary to a minimum and instead uses facts, anecdotes and excerpts from interviews to paint a picture (which may or may not be representative of the facts on the ground, buts its interesting nonetheless).

Two in particular are worth reading, particularly for the interviews. One is a very well researched and thorough piece about the J.U.I (F) and Fazlur Rehman's current and future role with respect to Talibanism in NWFP. You can (or rather should) read Arif Rafiq's commentary on that article here.

The other and most recent article to date concerns Balochi Separatists, and while it was perhaps attempting to portray their cause sympathetically, ended up making me dislike them even more than I already did.

The rest of his articles are listed and linked here.

Note: Click here to watch an Aunty Maulvi video which is both lame and strangely entertaining.

I-Had-No-Idea-About-This Fact Of The Day

If I told you that in test matches since 2004, Inzi was more likely to get a single than Younis Khan, and that Younis Khan was more likely to hit a boundary than Inzi, you would probably look at me funny. Well, it's true. See for yourself.

Parenting Job Of The Day

This, my friends, is simply unbelievable.



I can only presume that the cobra has been defanged.

Really Serious Problem Of The Day

From a letter published in today's Dawn.

I WANT to draw the attention of the general public and the government authorities concerned towards a common but very serious problem.

It has been observed that a number of mobile phone consumers use ring tones composed of recitation of Quranic verses.

Ring tones ring with the recitation of Quranic verses when the users are busy walking in a park, chatting with others, watching a movie or drama in cinema/theatre and even in washrooms.

It is a disrespect to the Holy Quran. It is also a common observation that people use ring tones composed of songs which ring during prayers in mosques that disrupt the meditation of the worshippers.

The government of Saudi Arabia has banned the ring tones composed of Quranic verses in the country on the recommendations of Islamic Fiqh Council. We should respect the Holy Quran and people should avoid using such ring tones.

The government and telecom companies should also take steps to check it.

And Now It's Lahore's Turn

A suicide bomber blew himself up in Lahore in a crowd of policemen, killing 23. After a particularly brutal 2007, when an estimated 60 suicide bomb attacks killed 770 people in Pakistan - almost all in the NWFP, Quetta or Karachi - 2008 is not off to a great start. On the surface, there are three possible explanations:

1. The fact that this was in Lahore, the biggest city in Punjab, is not a coincidence. Sindhi nationalists, after holding Punjab responsible for Benazir's death, have struck back with their own salvo.

This explanation is extremely implausible. Though Sindhi nationalists are angry - many at Punjab - it is not clear that they would resort to this type of political violence in response to Benazir's assassination. Furthermore, Sindhi nationalists, as far as I know, have never used suicide bombers even when they were heavily involved in political violence in the 1970s and 1980s.

2. The fact that this was the day before Muharram is not a coincidence. Extremist Sunni groups such as Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan or Lashkar-e-Jhangvi have given a warning/appetizer for anti-Shia violence during the holy month of Muharram.

This explanation is somewhat plausible though still unlikely. Though the method fits those of Sunni militant groups such as SSP or LEJ, these groups usually hit their target, and their target during Muharram is usually the Shia community (imambaraghs, Shia processions, etc). It is unclear why they would hit a crowd of policemen.

3. The oncoming of Muharram and the location of the attack (Lahore) are not instructive in the least. This is merely a continuation of the anti-state violence seen in NWFP and other areas of Pakistan perpetuated by groups such as al-Qaeda or Baitullah Mehsud's Taliban.

This explanation, for me anyway, is the most likely. Militant groups are seizing the opportunity to destabilize Pakistan further at a time when the state is more fragile than it has almost ever been. Violence and fear are the means, and the descent of Pakistan into chaos and anarchy is the end.

Our thoughts go out to the families of those killed and injured.

Photo credit: Max Becherer/New York Times

Iranians Prank Call American Warships?

On Tuesday, the Pentagon released some footage of what they alleged are Iranian Revolutionary Guard speedboats, circling two Coalition warships in the Strait of Hormuz. I've linked the video below.



The whole video is a little boring, so you may want to skip to the last 30 seconds.

At that point the screen goes black and a recording of what is alleged to be a radio exchange between the Iranians and the Americans is played. A slightly goofy, Iranian-accented voice threatens the Americans with imminent explosion. The Americans respond with understandable confusion, and don't end up exploding.

Needless to say, the Iranians have denied that any such incident occurred, and have accused the Americans of fabricating the incident, footage and dialogue.

A Revolutionary Guard official had this to say:

"The footage released by the U.S. Navy was compiled using file pictures and the audio has been fabricated"

A very annoyed U.S. Defense Department spokesman replied:

"[the Iranian] allegation is absurd, factually incorrect and reflects the lack of seriousness with which they take this serious incident."

Hmm very serious, and certainly not funny at all. But what if the Americans are telling the truth about their ships being circled, and the Iranians are telling the truth when they say it wasn't them? It would then have to be a regional group of slightly mental adrenaline junkies who had exhausted every possible other alternative in their unending quest for thrills.

On that basis, I think it was these guys. I can picture them making the prank call.

After BB, Fazlur Rehman?

It appears that Fazlur Rehman is now being targeted by militant groups. More worrying is the fact that the Maulana, like BB, is being forced to rely on his party, rather than the state, for his security. All the government appears to be doing is passing on extremely vague and unspecific information on the potential assassination attempt.

After receiving the intelligence-based information from the Interior Ministry, Fazlur Rehman immediately called the JUI-F to meet in his hometown Dera Ismail Khan, streamlining the added security cover through party resources.

The meeting, held on Tuesday, expressed complete dissatisfaction over the government security arrangements for Fazl and decided to hold the rulers responsible in case something untoward happened, the party sources said.

The government passed on the information, saying a clean-shaven person wearing white clothes could target the Maulana through a suicide bombing or firing, party sources said while referring to the discussions held at the meeting.

A clean-shaven person wearing white clothes. Hmm, that really narrows it down, doesn't it?

Anyway, it's no surprise that the Maulana is now being targeted. After all, he more than most has displayed a willingness to play ball with Musharraf. His party, the JUI-F, is strongest in the rural areas of NWFP - as opposed to the other main religious party, Qazi Hussain Ahmed's JI, which has more of a stronghold in urban areas like Karachi. The tribal areas in the Frontier are where anti-state violence is most strongly concentrated today, so he potentially holds the key to any lasting political settlement in the region. All things considered, the government would be best advised to step up its protection of the Maulana, lest we see a repeat of December 27.

This News Will Doubtless Reassure Many

Some of you may remember an attack on a Pakistan Air Force bus late last year that killed 8 people and wounded about 40. Well, they caught the mastermind of the operation. Turns out, he's a retired army major.

LAHORE, Jan 8: Intelligence agents on Tuesday claimed arresting an Al Qaeda-linked militant and six of his associates in connection with an attack on a bus of the Pakistan Air Force in November that killed eight people and wounded about 40 others.

The suspect, identified as Ahsanul Haq, is a retired army major, an official said. He was caught in Lahore last month following the attack in Sargodha, the official said.

Mr Haq told security forces the name of the bomber, who belonged to an outlawed militant group, the security official said.

Remember, kids: there is no nexus between militant groups on the one hand and our armed forces and intelligence agencies on the other. None whatsoever.

The Bradley Effect?

I don't want to sound like a sore loser or anything, but Clinton's win in New Hampshire tonight is mighty fishy. She's won it 39-36, but eight national polls released over the last 24 hours, no more, all gave Obama a hefty lead (an average of 7-10%). How did a 10% lead become a 3% loss? Isn't a 13 point swing in one day, on the day votes were cast, a little strange?

Not if you consider the Bradley Effect. For those who don't know, the Bradley Effect is named after a former black mayor of Los Angeles who ran for governor of California against a white opponent. Leading up to the election, Bradley dominated all the polls. He ended up losing the race. Why? Because white voters, in an effort to not appear racist to pollsters, said they would vote for Bradley or that they were undecided. When the time came to actually vote - and, crucially, when no one could see which candidate they voted for - they went the other way. The Bradley Effect, then, refers to an artificial bump in pre-election polling numbers for black (or Hispanic) candidates running against white ones. From my vantage point, it appears to have done Obama in tonight.

Tell me I'm wrong. Tell me there's another sound, logical explanation for a 13 point swing in one day. Please, go ahead. I'm waiting.

Bilawal: Leave Me The Hell Alone

So Bilawal (Bhutto) Zardari comes out with the following statement at a press conference: "When I am at Oxford I hope I can be left alone." Translation: "Now that I am co-chairman of the biggest political party in a country of 170 million people, I'd like to enjoy my newfound status with members of the opposite sex at college, like every other self-respecting frat-boy. Please don't knock on my door after 7 p.m. Thank you." If he was French, this would work brilliantly - hell, he could be President and take his hot ex-supermodel girlfriend to Egypt for a holiday, and no one would bat an eyelid. Not sure if it works as well for Pakistanis though.

Quote Of The Day

The head of a nationalist Sindhi movement, Qadir Magsi, on Pakistan's and Sindh's future:

The Punjabi elite treats us as a slave nation, and Sindh as an occupied territory. Benazir Bhutto was the last hope to keep Pakistan united. Now, this Pakistan must be broken apart.

If You Need Any More Convincing That Democrats Should Nominate Obama

John Edwards' favorite show is Law and Friggin Order. Clinton's is Grey's Godawful Anatomy. Obama? The Wire.

Seriously, how can you not vote for this guy?

UPDATE: Dennis Kucinich apparently loves Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. I wonder if he ever saw this Jason Jones report on the Daily Show.

Have You Ever Seen A Bus Driver Not Know The Way?

I have. This fucktard almost made me miss my flight. He took more than an hour to get from 125th St and Lexington Avenue to my terminal at LaGuardia (a trip that usually takes about 20-25 minutes). I'm sorry, I don't normally blog about personal experiences, but this was ridiculous. How can a bus driver not know his own route? And if it's not his route, why is he driving the goddamn bus? The poor sap had to get one of the regulars on the bus to help him. I don't think I'll ever see a bus driver getting directions again. Stupid MTA.

The Numbers On Australia's Dominance (And Other Thoughts)

You have to feel for India, you really do. Like I said in a recent post, the only bright side to such lopsidedly incompetent umpiring is the chance that something will be done about it. Here's hoping that a referral system is introduced in our sport, lest it becomes even more of a farce than it already has.

Be that as it may, the umpiring only casts doubt on the sixteenth of sixteen wins in a row. Pretty much everything else was won fair and square. I got on to Cricinfo's statsguru to see exactly how dominant Australia have been lately. The numbers were even more astounding than I thought they would be. Consider that since October 14, 1999 Australia (a) have won 74 out of 95 tests, with 11 draws and 10 losses, and (b) have won 26 out of 30 completed series, with a full seventeen of those series wins whitewashes. Please look at those numbers again. Don't they sort of, you know, make you want to puke?

Anyway, there's another reason I'm happy Australia acted like such cunts in this game (the two Ponting incidents, the two Clarke incidents, the Gilchrist appeal, among many others). We finally have a real villain in the game. Too many people, for too long, respected Australia too much. Despite being the best, Australia strangely caught very little of the revulsion that juggernauts normally elicit (think of the number of people who hate Man United for instance). People were content with saying nice things about them, getting their asses kicked, and moving on to the next series. Now, everything changes. Their reputation will suffer immeasurably from this. No matter what psycho-nationalist-types might say, the Aussies bear a large portion of the responsibility for the substandard umpiring - the psychological pressure they exert on umpires, home or away, is truly a sight to behold (in a disgusting, pornographic type of way). And it's not just the umpiring. It's the holier-than-thou reaction of Ponting after the game, when an Indian reporter had the temerity to question his integrity. It's the smugness of Symonds after getting a reprieve that effectively cost India the game. And it's their ratting out of Harbajhan for saying whatever the hell it is he said - do you really believe they don't say worse on a regular basis?

Good for Kumble saying what he did. I never thought the day would come when I would actively and wholeheartedly support India at cricket. Thanks to those lovable Aussies, that day is here.

More On The Benazir Assassination

There's a really good article in The Guardian on the investigation of the killing. I highly, highly recommend reading the whole thing, even for those who are intimately aware of the details of the case. Here's a snippet that caught me by surprise.

Now officials are considering the possibility that Bhutto turned her head after she heard the first shot and was then hit on the right side by the second or third shots.

Another possibility is that the doctors missed an entry wound on Bhutto's left side. 'The doctor [Mohammad Khan] was asked, 'Did you examine the other side of her head?' He said, 'I didn't have time. They all thought there would be an autopsy,' the government official said.

They didn't examine the other side of her head? For lack of time?! What else, pray tell, did Mohammad Khan have to do that evening? Was he going to a wedding? Kid's birthday party perhaps? This entire thing gets stranger and stranger by the day. Sometimes I get the feeling we're all characters in an Oliver Stone movie, except in this case the gross exaggerations and miscasting of historical fact are superfluous: our reality is crazy enough.

A Couple Of Humorous Bill O'Reilly Stories

First, a schoolgirl makes him look dumb - admittedly not the most arduous of tasks - and he refuses to admit his error.

During the course of plugging his new book, Kids Are American Too, on his show the other night (it "turned out to be a very hot Christmas gift this season!"), Bill O'Reilly thought it might be fun to answer questions from kids. But he was not prepared for Courtney Yong, from San Francisco. "Mr. O'Reilly, I really enjoyed Kids Are Americans Too," Courtney's question began, auspiciously enough. "But in the first sentence of Chapter Three you say the Constitution guarantees 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.' Isn't that from the Declaration of Independence?"

Now, some of us, in O'Reilly's situation, might have laughed. We might have made a joke about how everyone confuses those two old things, and later made a hissing, angry phone call to whatever HarperCollins editor let the sentence, "For openers, the Constitution guarantees all of us, in a famous phrase, 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,'" slip by untweaked, since while, as the folks at Media Matters have noted, the Constitution promises the government shall not deprive any person "of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law," Courtney is right: "Pursuit of happiness" belongs to the Declaration.

But what did noted America lover Bill do? He tried to cover it up. No, worse — hilariously worse — he tried to act like he did it on purpose. "An excellent question, Courtney," he responded. "The reason the Constitution was forged was to assure new American citizens the right to free life and access to pursue happiness in his or her own way. The Declaration was the statement; the Constitution, the instrument."

Then, he starts a shoving match at an Obama rally.

With his camera crew behind him and the sound boom overhead, O'Reilly waited to grab the senator on his way out the door. I had been watching him since his arrival (his group had bumped into me at one of the two press platforms), and I followed him to watch the spectacle it was certain he would create.

At first, the railing where O'Reilly stood wasn't very populated. Then, as the Obama team saw who was laying in wait, they started to huddle. Staffers started to arrive at the scene. Three policemen showed up, too. One of them stood in front of O'Reilly until O'Reilly asked him to move. One of Obama's staffers, Marvin Nicholson, took up the same post, standing in front of the Fox camera as Obama neared the door.

"You're blocking our shot," yelled O'Reilly.

"Oh, am I?" asked the Obama staffer, not entirely sincerely, and not moving.

This is not a new trick. When staffers block you because you're being too aggressive, the standard thing to do is give them a little business and then move to another spot. O'Reilly didn't do this. He shoved the Obama aide. There was an exchange and a little more shoving. I didn't fully capture it because as I looked at O'Reilly in his black leather Fox jacket, which resembled the kind we wore during football season in high school, I swore I could hear him challenge the staffer to a rumble out by the drive-in.

"That's really low class, pal," said O'Reilly.

I love Bill O'Reilly. He makes living so much more fun.

Quote Of The Day

Our beloved President, on BB's assassination:

For standing up outside the car, I think it was she to blame alone. Nobody else. Responsibility is hers.

Guess they don't really teach sensitivity at St. Pat's. I mean, even if what he's saying is technically true, does he really need to be saying it?

Quote of the Day

Having seen a picture of Bilawal Bhutto dressed up as the Devil for a costume party (shown here), the 24 year old Maulana Mohavya Irshad of the Lal Masjid had this to say:

"Bilawal has become the target for those who killed Benazir Bhutto. His party (PPP) has to take extra care of him and look after his security"

"At this time, I don't know much about Bilawal. I only know he is a liberal person and that is deviation from Islam. True Muslims will not allow him to go against Islam,"

"These true Muslims will be horrified to see this image of Bilawal dressed as the devil with a pretty girl in his arm at a decadent party at Oxford University"

Right. So actually being a true manifestation of evil isn't a crime punishable by death, but dressing up as one is. I should add that in previous interviews Mr Irshad has stated his willingness to suicide bomb things in the name of what he thinks is Islam.

I should also add that Mr Irshad is of the opinion that the girl is cute.

Some Mindless Entertainment

It's been pretty heavy here at Rs. 5 for a few days, so here's some temporary relief.

Can Benazir's Foreign Friends Please Stop Masquerading As Journalists?

So a friend of mine, who is intimately aware of Pakistani politics, commented on a post yesterday, saying among other things, "I don't recognize this person [BB] being spoken about in/by the media here [the U.S] *at all*." And it's true. While I'm all for being respectful of someone who recently died, and am completely fine with less than critical assessments of leaders immediately after they die, I think there's a fine line between being respectful and being a revisionist historian. This syndrome, which we can call BWATAM (Benazir Was All That And More), is especially likely to take hold if you (a) went to Harvard with BB and were charmed by her, (b) went to Oxford with BB and were charmed by her, (c) were in the British or American governments and/or legislatures between 1985 and 1995 and were charmed by her, or (d) were in Washington over the last 12 to 18 months and were charmed by her (or her $500,000-a-year lobbyists, same difference).

Look, I'm not trying to be asshole, I'm really not. As I've said before, her death is a tragedy for our country. But it's becoming increasingly difficult to read articles which use her nickname ("Pinky"), and talk about time spent in Bruges, and drinks at the Pierre, without a single reference to her political career. Or articles that take at face value Asif Zardari's assertion that he wasn't returning to Pakistan with BB because "the children ought to have at least one parent at home." Some of you might say: if you have a problem with said articles, don't read 'em. To that, I would retort: it's not my displeasure at the articles themselves per se - people can write whatever they hell they want, after all - but at the fact that the people writing them are writing them as journalists, in respected publications like Newsweek and Slate. They should have some sort of duty to objectivity.

I should emphasize that I have no problem with Westerners thinking the world of her. Why wouldn't they? She was charismatic, eloquent, and intelligent. Moreover, they didn't have to live in the Pakistan during the 1990s, so they never saw the other side of the ledger for themselves. Which, I reiterate, is fine: I'm sure there are millions of people out there of whom I have an incomplete picture but don't yet know it. But journalists/historians/political scientists/others of the same ilk should, in their obituaries and tributes, at least make a passing mention of the following:

1. The rampant corruption of her and her husband - known as Mr. 10% during her second term for the kickbacks he received on almost all government contracts (he was known as Mr. 5% in her first term). The necklaces, the Surrey estates, the apartments in Dubai and the Upper East Side of New York, and godknowswhatelse.
2. The widespread failure of her economic policies in the 1990s.
3. Her authoritarian, undemocratic, and unforgiving nature. Exhibit A is how she simply handed over the PPP - the nation's biggest and only truly national party - to a nineteen year old who doesn't have a college education, can't speak Urdu (let alone Sindhi), and is in way over his head. Exhibit B is how she sidelined and marginalized one of the most talented and brilliant politicians/lawyers in Pakistan, Aitzaz Ahsan, because he dared tread a different path from her vis-a-vis the Chief Justice and Musharraf. Both A and B, by the way, are drawn from the last two months alone. The further you go back in history, the more you'll find.

Again, I'm not trying to be asshole. But you can't be a journalist or political commentator of repute by pretending these traits didn't exist. If you want to grieve for her and Pakistan, that's great: we welcome your sympathy. But don't make her out to be someone she wasn't.

UPDATE: One thing you can't criticize her for is Pakistan's support for the Taliban and our Kashmir policy in the 1990s. Critics of BB point to her time in government and how these two largely unenlightened, unmoderate, and unsuccessful policies either began or were given continued support during those years. To those people, I say: the Army and the ISI controlled our foreign policy, at least insofar as our neighbors were concerned. There is nothing BB could have done. This is a matter of historical fact, not mere opinion.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Here's William Dalrymple in the NYT on a number of the issues raised in this post and in the comments in response to it.