Five Rupees

Sarah Palin, Energy Policy Wonk (Updated Below)

2009-07-14T19:39:00.007+01:00

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

After all, why does Sarah Palin have an op-ed on climate legislation in the Washington Post? Does she have scientific expertise? Economic expertise? Knowledge of the state of international climate negotiations?
Perhaps during her brief time in the public spotlight she developed a reputation for an unusually solid grasp of complicated policy details? Or is the idea that she’s known for being honest? A good-faith participant in public policy debates?
Well, no.

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

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

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

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

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

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

The Craziest Catch

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Joke of the Day

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Half Baked Alaska

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Joke of the Day

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

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

Bilawal as Zelig

2009-07-14T13:09:00.002+01:00

Photo Credit: Dawn

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

The Supreme Court's Arbitrariness

2009-07-14T00:00:00.004+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2009-07-13T16:31:00.003+01:00

Just a thought:

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

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

Andrew Strauss Talking Out of His Ass

2009-07-12T23:19:00.002+01:00

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

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

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

What Is With South Asians And Singing About Condoms?

2009-07-11T20:52:00.003+01:00

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

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

Proof That Rugby Isn't Good For The Brain

2009-07-10T12:30:00.006+01:00

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

Myles in hiding after scandal @ Yahoo!7 Video

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

What's Obama Up To With Russia?

2009-07-10T06:56:00.003+01:00

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

Applebaum's answer is that pragmatism was behind it:

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

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

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

The president said his agenda in Russia includes talks on a new treaty to curtail long-range nuclear missiles.
Asked why he intends to meet Putin, Obama said the former president "still has a lot of sway ... and I think that it's important that even as we move forward with President Medvedev that Putin understand that the old cold war approaches to US-Russian relations is outdated — that's it's time to move forward in a different direction".
"I think Medvedev understands that. I think Putin has one foot in the old ways of doing business and one foot in the new, and to the extent that we can provide him and the Russian people a clear sense that the US is not seeking an antagonistic relationship but wants cooperation on nuclear non-proliferation, fighting terrorism, energy issues, that we'll end up having a stronger partner overall in this process," he said.

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

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

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

Just thinking out loud.

I'm Back, What'd I Miss?

2009-07-10T01:05:00.006+01:00

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

So this is what happened in the last seven days:

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

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

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

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

Regular blogging resumes tomorrow or on the weekend.

Ad of the Day

2009-07-09T16:19:00.001+01:00

Via Gawker

Quotes of the Day

2009-07-09T13:59:00.002+01:00

No surprise that they all came from Shoaib Akhtar.

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

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

More arrogance:

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

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

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

Monday Links

2009-07-06T20:16:00.003+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Immediate Thoughts on the Federer-Roddick Wimbledon Final

2009-07-05T19:21:00.003+01:00

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

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

Wimbledon Final Preview: A One-Sided Contest?

2009-07-04T10:34:00.002+01:00

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

Let's look at the stats.

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

Does Roddick have any hope?

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

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

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

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

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

Quote of the Day

2009-07-04T00:41:00.003+01:00

Younus Khan might want to reconsider the wording of this quote he gave on the eve of Pakistan's Test series against Sri Lanka:

We will start where we finished off in Lahore

Now, before you guys start complaining, I know what he actually meant. I just found the way he chose to phrase it quite funny.

Farewell, Sarah Palin

2009-07-03T23:20:00.002+01:00

So, we won't have Sarah Palin to kick out around anymore. Her resignation as governor of Alaska should spell the end of her political career. Were she going to run for president in 2012, she would have at least seen her term out.

But she didn't go quietly. Good God, did she make a lot of noise. Her speech is so full of nonsense, non-sequiters and audacious lies that it almost makes me nostalgic for the presidential campaign.

For example, she said, "You can choose to engage in things that tear down, or build up. I choose to work very hard on a path for fruitfulness and productivity." Let's ignore the non-existent grammar of that sentence and concentrate instead on what she said about Barack Obama in her stump speech back in 2008. He was a guy, according to her, who "palled around with terrorists." Way to enagage with ideas and not tear people down.

Then there's this:

Life is too short to compromise time and resources... it may be tempting and more comfortable to just keep your head down, plod along, and appease those who demand: "Sit down and shut up", but that's the worthless, easy path; that's a quitter's way out.

So, serving out the term to which you have been elected is what a quitter would do? How would you describe what you are just doing? You know, quitting literally as opposed to this bizzare definition you have just given.

My choice is to take a stand and effect change – not hit our heads against the wall and watch valuable state time and money, millions of your dollars, go down the drain in this new environment. Rather, we know we can effect positive change outside government at this moment in time, on another scale, and actually make a difference for our priorities – and so we will, for Alaskans and for Americans

For the life of me, I can't figure out how Palin resigning would save millions of dollars. If I understood the speech (believe me it's hard), then she believes money is being wasted on investigating all the ethics violations complaints that have been levelled against her. But those investigations won't go away just because she's resigned. I also find it odd that she thinks she can do more for Alaska as a private citizen than as governor.

Even her metaphors suck:

Let me go back to a comfortable analogy for me – sports… basketball. I use it because you’re naïve if you don’t see the national full-court press picking away right now: A good point guard drives through a full court press, protecting the ball, keeping her eye on the basket… and she knows exactly when to pass the ball so that the team can WIN

Thanks to Malcolm Gladwell I know that point guards don't dribble through a full court press.

This faulty analogy is used to give even more reasons for her quitting:

And I’m doing that – keeping our eye on the ball that represents sound priorities – smaller government, energy independence, national security, freedom! And I know when it’s time to pass the ball – for victor.

I don't know what role an Alaskan governor has in national security but, like her, I too have no doubt that having Sarah Palin far from any official position makes America safer.

My decision was also fortified during this most recent trip to Kosovo and Landstuhl, to visit our wounded soldiers overseas, those who sacrifice themselves in war for OUR freedom and security… we can ALL learn from our selfless Troops… they’re bold, they don’t give up, they take a stand and know that LIFE is short so they choose to NOT waste time. They choose to be productive and to serve something greater than SELF... and to build up their families, their states, our country. These Troops and their important missions – those are truly the worthy causes in this world and should be the public priority with time and resources and NOT this local / superficial wasteful political bloodsport.

I knew she would be able to work The Troops in there, no matter how tenuous the connection.

Then we get this contradiction:

It hurts to make this choice but I am doing what’s best for Alaska. I’ve explained why… though I think of the saying on my parents’ refrigerator that says “Don’t explain: your friends don’t need it and your enemies won’t believe you anyway.”

But I have given my reasons… no more “politics as usual” and I am taking my fight for what’s right – for Alaska – in a new direction.

Sarah Palin is not explaining why she's quitting but she's given her reasons. If you don't get the distinction you obviously have a brain.

Now, despite this, I don’t want any Alaskan dissuaded from entering politics after seeing this REAL “climate change” that began in August

You get that? That is what passes for conservative humour. Might I also ask if her youngest son wrote this, what with all the capitalized words and all?

Oh, Sarah Palin. How I'm going to miss you.

Who is Jinnah's Great Grandson? UPDATED The Guy is Probably a Fake

2009-07-03T00:51:00.003+01:00

Since Rs 5 has some of the smartest readers around, I'm going to rely on you guys to figure something out.

Who the fuck is Aslam Jinnah?

The guy is claiming to be Mohammed Ali Jinnah's great grandson and is getting Rs 50,000 a month, a car and a house from the government. He may well be Jinnah's great grandson, in which I apologize for suspecting his motives.

But Jinnah had only one daughter, Dina Wadia, whom he disowned after she married Parsi Neville Wadia. I searched Wikipedia and found that Dina had one son, Nusli Wadia, who, in turn, has two sons, Ness Wadia and Jeh Wadia.

So Aslam Jinnah is obviously not directly Jinnah's great grandson. But extended family means a lot in Pakistan and he could be the great grandchild of one of Jinnah's sisters (he had no brothers). In which case, Aslam has obviously followed the Bilawal model of adopting a more politically benefical surname. Either that or he's pulled off a great scam and shown, yet again, how stupid the government is.

So I ask you guys once again: Who the fuck is Aslam Jinnah?

UPDATE: So, I should have been more assiduous in my Googling. Looks like the guy is faking it. A pretty daring and inventive stunt, if you ask me. Hats off to you, Mr Aslam Jinnah (or whatever your real name is). You deserve the car and house for your cojones.

Vince Spadea Is Weird

2009-07-02T14:00:00.002+01:00

The BBC conducts an off the cuff interview with bewildering professional tennis player Vince Spadea.

Poll Post, And An Announcement

2009-07-02T04:09:00.002+01:00

You can comment on this week's post here, if you wish.

Also, just letting you guys know I won't be blogging for the next week since I'm taking a vacation. So you won't hear until from me until next Thursday, unless Bilawal is caught in a sex scandal with Michael Jackson or something.

When I come back, I have a few things I'd like to get to with regards to blogging:

1. Finishing up my analysis of why there's an elite in cricket.
2. Talking about what the hell Real are doing in the transfer market (in case you didn't know, they friggin' signed Benzema today), and how (or if it all) it affects Barca next year.
3. An analysis of the civil war in 1971, with particular reference to Husain Haqqani's treatment of the entire episode in his book.
4. A conversation with my friend (and fellow PhD Poli Sci student) Lindsey on higher education, and the changes we would like to see in academia.

AKS and Bubs, it's all you. Take care guys, and see you soon.

Another Example of Government Idiocy

2009-07-01T22:49:00.002+01:00

In recent days we have had the Sindh Assembly observe a minute's silence to mourn Michael Jackson's death and the Punjab Assembly come to blows. It's easy to laugh these off, but this statement by Sports Minister Aftab Jilani really made me angry:

Pakistan's Sports Minister Pir Aftab Shah Jilani blamed the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) for losing the 2011 World Cup hosting rights.
After a meeting with Pakistan Sports Board in Islamabad, Jilani told reporters that 'those steering Pakistan cricket were responsible for failure to bring the World Cup 2011 matches back to the country.'

The minister is probably fearful that he will be blamed for the loss of the World Cup and is trying to deflect responsibility in the direction of the PCB. How big an idiot is he, and more importantly, how stupid does he think we are? Gilani may have forgotten that the Sri Lankan team was attacked less than five months back, but we haven't forgotten and the cricketing world certainly remembers it too. There is nothing the PCB could have done to keep the World Cup in Pakistan. And I haven't heard a single convinving argument that Pakistan should host international cricket in the near future. Winning the T20 World Cup was great for our morale, but it hasn't made Pakistan any safer.

Stop blaming the PCB. The terrorists are responsible for our cricketing isolation. Trying to cloud the issue to save your own skin (which no one is after in any case) is cowardly and unbecoming of a federal minister.

How to Politely Tell Your Wife to Bugger Off

2009-06-30T21:37:00.003+01:00

In just 30 seconds (from 0:53 onwards), Roger Federer manages to mock women who expect their husbands to be involved with their pregnancies ("Oh I'm pregant...I can't move around...Help me"), condescend to his wife ("Mirka is a wonderful person anyway") and only see your wives pregnancy in terms of how it benefits you ("Mirka is feeling great which is really helping me"). Coming from, say, Shane Warne, it would sound horribly sexist. But Federer just seems all the more endearing.

Microsoft Word Changing The English Language Watch

2009-06-30T21:10:00.004+01:00

The red squiggly line Nazi has just told me that "redressal" is no longer a word.

Other stupid MS Word corrections here, here, here, and here.

Punjab, Sindh Assemblies Locked In Battle To The Death

2009-06-30T08:09:00.001+01:00

I absolutely love my country. Why? Because shit like this simply cannot, I repeat cannot, happen anywhere else. It just makes my day brighter.

On Saturday, the Punjab Assembly saw a walk-out in protest against, as Dawn says, something that was never said. Please, please, please read the whole article. In fact, I am copying and pasting here to save you the trouble of having to click.

LAHORE, June 27: Sheikh Ala-ud-Din of PML-Q Forward Bloc on Saturday must have made history in the Punjab Assembly when he walked out of the house in protest against something that was never said.

The ire of the Sheikh, a member from Kasur (PP-181) fell on Mohsin Leghari (PP-245, DG Khan) of the PML-Q when Mr Leghari, while accentuating his southern roots, read a few lines from Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar.

Mr Leghari, delivering his budget speech, maintained the finance bill was more of an urban document, which excluded rural development.

Speaking on the neglect of southern Punjab, he said though he loved Lahore – a city where he was educated, got his first employment and still resides in – he has not forgotten his ancestral land. Explaining his predicament, he quoted from the last scene of the Julius Caesar, where Brutus explains his killing of Caesar by saying: “It’s not that I loved Caesar less, but I loved Rome more.”

Provoked either by his lack of understanding or knowledge, Mr Ala-ud-Din immediately stood on a point of order and started grilling Mr Leghari for insulting Lahore, which gave him education, employment and residence, and thundered: “This Lahore bashing must end, especially by those who have benefited immensely from the city.”

Both Speaker Rana Iqbal and Mr Mohsin tried to convince their colleague that no insulting remark had been passed against Lahore, but to no avail. After making an emotional speech, Sheikh Ala-ud-Din walked out of the house in protest against “insult to Lahore”.

He was later brought back by Education Minister Mian Mujtaba Shujaur Rahman on speaker’s request, and the minister also lectured the house on avoiding hurting each others’ territorial feelings.

As if all this was not enough, Dr Asad Ashraf of the PML-N found a new dimension to the innocent quote and stunned everyone in the house. On next point of order, he took off by saying: “Since Mr Mohsin has called himself Caesar, he must know how Caesar was born.

It was his difficult birth, which gave birth to Caesarian Operation (C-Section). How bad Caesar proved for his mother.”

On both occasions, Leghari defended himself that he has neither insulted Lahore nor called himself Caesar, but the die was cast.

The Sindh Assembly, on the same day, decided that this was not farcical enough, and decided to observe a minute's silence in honor of Michael Jackson's death. Because, after all, if there's one thing bridging the PPP/MQM rural/urban divide in Sindh, it's old Wacko.

The Punjab Assembly, in retort, decided that no, they should assume most-ridiculous status in Pakistan. And so this happened:

LAHORE: Government representatives and leaders of the opposition exchanged blows in Punjab Assembly hall when the assembly session was underway here on Monday.

According to Geo News, PML-Q’s PA member Bushra Gardezi waved a banner against Chief Minister Punjab Shahbaz Sharif which led to the brawl as the Provincial Minister Prisons Abdul Ghafoor took the banner away from her and made some abusive remarks.

Chaudhry Abdul Ghafoor then threw budget proposal scripts at the female opposition leaders which further contributed to the heated environment and the opposition and govt leaders burst into a physical fight.

Women leaders of PML-Q threw back the books at Chaudhry Ghafoor and government leaders.

The opposition staged a walk out from the session in protest of the incident. Later, leader of the Unification Bloc, Atta Manika also walked out.

Opposition leader Chaudhry Zaheeruddin talking to media said it is no longer possible to sit here due to the inappropriate attitude adopted by the government leaders.

As with most things in Pakistan, Punjab wins this round, but the war is surely not over just yet.

When Academics Get Catty (Healthcare Edition)

2009-06-30T06:54:00.003+01:00

Henry Kissinger is said to have once opined that "academic debates are so bitter because the stakes are so low". I'm not exactly endorsing that view -- wouldn't say much about my career choice, would it? -- but I did think of that quote today, because of this debate:

Greg Mankiw: Blah blah blah health care blah blah blah market best.

Paul Krugman: Meoooww.

Greg Mankiw: Meeeeeoooooowwwwwww.

Ok, ok, that's not actually what they said. But it wasn't far off.

Here's what actually transpired:

Mankiw:

If the government has a dominant role in buying the services of doctors and other health care providers, it can force prices down. Once the government is virtually the only game in town, health care providers will have little choice but to take whatever they can get. It is no wonder that the American Medical Association opposes the public option.
To be sure, squeezing suppliers would have unpleasant side effects. Over time, society would end up with fewer doctors and other health care workers. The reduced quantity of services would somehow need to be rationed among competing demands. Such rationing is unlikely to work well.
FAIRNESS is in the eye of the beholder, but nothing about a government-run health care system strikes me as fair. Squeezing providers would save the rest of us money, but so would a special tax levied only on health care workers, and that is manifestly inequitable.
In the end, it would be a mistake to expect too much from health insurance reform. A competitive system of private insurers, lightly regulated to ensure that the market works well, would offer Americans the best health care at the best prices.

Krugman's response:

Both George Will and Greg Mankiw basically argue that we don’t need a government role because we can trust the market to work — hey, we do it for groceries, right?
Um, economists have known for 45 years — ever since Kenneth Arrow’s seminal paper — that the standard competitive market model just doesn’t work for health care: adverse selection and moral hazard are so central to the enterprise that nobody, nobody expects free-market principles to be enough. To act all wide-eyed and innocent about these problems at this late date is either remarkably ignorant or simply disingenuous.

And Mankiw's final word:

On the issue of tone, I again think I understand Paul's point of view. He likely believes that civility is overrated. He seems to think that in the blogosphere, and perhaps in the public debate more generally, you score points simply by insulting your intellectual adversaries. Sadly, I am afraid he may be right.

Right-o. My personal view on Krugman is: great economist, excellent writer, kind of a douche. His commentary during last year's Democratic primaries, when he blindly supported everything Hillary did and said, really got my goat. My personal view on Mankiw is: anyone who thinks the market can provide healthcare adequately in an advanced economy can't possibly be thinking right and being honest at the same time. The healthcare system in America is so broken, it's actually quite funny.

Anyway, here's good ol' Nate Silver adjudicating the dispute.

Good News: Pakistan Moving Down Failed States Rankings (Updated Below)

2009-06-29T18:14:00.006+01:00

To quote Borat, wow wow wee waa. After a move to number nine last year, we've slipped to tenth, as Guinea and the Central African Republic put in sterling performances to displace us. Brilliant! At this rate, we will be Denmark in 2167.

Yes, yes, these rankings don't really mean anything, but is anyone going to deny they're fun as hell to look at?

UPDATE: Here's the link for the full rankings, complete with an interactive map and everything. A commenter wondered how we're above (below?) Haiti. I don't know about Haiti, but I'm wondering how the hell we're seven spots above (below?) North Korea and a full thirteen spots above (below?) Niger. Niger!