- How do people express political discontent in this super media-saturated, ultra-commercialized age? Through their cellphones. Over 500,000 people, including folks in Spain and Venezuela, Some genius turned the Spanish King's verbal bitchslap of Hugo the Jerk into a widely popular ringtone, and over 500,000 people, including folks in Spain and Venezuela, have downloaded it.
"It's a form of protest," a 21-year-old student in Caracas told the Miami Herald. "It's something that a lot of people would like to tell the president."
Companies selling the ringtones have avoided legal problems concerning breach of the king's image rights by using an actor to voice the line.
Awesome. Simply awesome. This isn't a political thing, it's an up-yours, would-be despots of the world sort of thing. I hope people start doing this with Achmedinajad, Putin, and whoever the hell is in charge over in Burma. Laughter can't always stop bullets. But I still think there's something splendidly democratic about people using their freedom of expression to tell their leader to shove it.
The entire history of Pakistan is this: There are lots of crazy people living there, they have nuclear weapons, and any Pakistani leader who prevents the crazies from getting the nukes is George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison all rolled into one.
Except, of course, that Musharraf is more interested in protecting his own ass than ours, meaning that if he thinks it's in his own interests to, say, buy off Islamists by selling us up shit creek, he wouldn't be opposed to doing it.
Weeks later, the New York Times editorial page called on "masses of Pakistanis" to participate in "peaceful demonstrations" against Musharraf, which would be like calling on masses of Pakistanis to engage in daily bathing (the New York Times editorial page being the most effective way to communicate with the Pakistani masses).
Is this Ann trying to cover her ass by pretending this "joke" is about the arrogance of the Times, as opposed to the fact that she sounds dangerously close to suggesting that Pakistanis are filthy cave trolls?
As opposed to Musharraf's failed track record of refusing to go after Al Qaida unless Bush sits on him.Media darling Bhutto returned to Pakistan after fleeing the country following her conviction for corruption as prime minister. Her conviction was later overturned by the corrupt Pakistani Supreme Court, leaving me to ponder, which is worse: being convicted of corruption in a Pakistani court or being exonerated of corruption in a Pakistani court? She was again convicted in a Swiss court of money laundering.
The media adore Bhutto because she went to Harvard and Oxford, which I consider two more strikes against her. A degree from Harvard is prima facie evidence that she's on the side of the terrorists.
I note that Bhutto demonstrates her own deep commitment to democracy by giving herself the title "chairperson for life" of the Pakistan Peoples Party.
Because, of course, being FOR free elections must mean anyone supporting democracy in Pakistan is FOR Ms. Bhutto. Brilliant.
Liberals hysterically opposed our imposing a democracy on Iraq and despise Nouri al-Maliki, the democratically elected leader of Iraq. Say, has Maliki ever been convicted in a Swiss court of money laundering?
No, he's just got ties to dozens of wackjob Shiite militas that spend their free time handing out free trephenation samples to their Sunni neighbors. That's MUCH better! Call me crazy, but I don't think I want my money going to EITHER of those assholes.
Compared to Pakistan, imposing democracy in Iraq is like imposing democracy in Darien, Conn. But in Iraq, liberals prefer an anti-American dictator, like Saddam Hussein. Only in Pakistan do liberals yearn for pure democracy.
Actually, I yearn for "pure" democracy everywhere. And, as much as it pains me to do so, I also acknowledge that not every place in the world may be ready for democracy. However, short of democracy, I'd settle for prioritizing human rights. If the US is going to throw its weight around, then I feel it has a responsibility to use its influence to try to help people, not, say, prop up governments that are moderately pro-US but totally likely to butcher their own people or the ones next door. The same dilemma is going on in both Pakistan and Iraq, and Afghanistan, for that matter, where the pro-US government is actually quite good on the lip service, and even seems to believe in the democratic principles it espouses, but unfortunately has no teeth and is not willing to bring the same rights and privileges enjoyed in Kabul to, say, anywhere else in the country.
You wouldn't know it to read the headlines, but Musharraf has not staged a military coup. In fact, he was re-elected – in a landslide – just weeks ago under Pakistan's own parliamentary system.
How high are you, exactly? Musharraf has repeatedly tried to hamstring the Supreme Court, and the Parliament, by forcing them to swear loyalty oaths to him. He won both his elections because most of the parties boycotted. The most recent election saw another boycott, plus 80 resignations by MPs, and the two most popular opposition leaders still in enforced exile- the lesser-known one, Nawaz Sharif, had actually come back and was immediately deported by Musharraf's troops. Yeah, that's some real respect for the democratic process. Incidentally, Musharraf has hardly cleaned up political corruption in the eight years he's been in office, either.
But the Pakistani Supreme Court, like our own Supreme Court, believes it is above the president and refused to acknowledge Musharraf's election on the grounds that he is disqualified because he is still wearing a military uniform. That's when Musharraf sent them home.
Damn Supreme Court, wanting things like an Independent Judiciary and separation of powers. How dare they! Haven't they learned anything from the Bush presidency?
Musharraf's election was certainly more legitimate than that of Syrian President Bashar Assad (with whom every leading Democrat has had a photo-op) or Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (adjunct professor at Columbia University) or Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez (loon).
At least we aren't giving money or privileges to Syria, Iran or Venezuela. No one in Washington could claim with a straight face, for instance, that Iran is our ally.
Pakistan is a country where local Islamic courts order women to be raped as punishment for the crimes of their male relatives. Among the Islamists' bill of particulars against Musharraf is the fact that he has promoted the Women's Protection Bill, which would punish rape, rather than using it as a device for social control.
...Pakistan doesn't need Adlai Stevenson right now. It needs Mustafa Kemal Ataturk to impose military rule and drag a country of Islamic savages into the 19th century, as Ataturk did in Turkey. Pakistan's Ataturk is Gen. Musharraf.
...To try to force democracy on the differing "I hate America" factions in Pakistan at this stage would be worse than Jimmy Carter's abandonment of the shah in 1979.
Ann has her lines, and I have mine. My position is that we should not have supported the Shah, and we should not support Musharraf. We should not support regimes that are anti-democracy and anti-human rights. Supporting Musharraf because he pisses off the Islamists makes as much sense as supporting Saddam against Khomeini did- and look where that got us. Look where supporting Bin Laden against the Soviets got us. Lesser of two evils doesn't mean good.
Pat Buchanan also reminds us all of his positions as well- just in case you needed the refresher. Turns out Pat's pro-dictatorial sheiks. Who'd have thought.
- Last, I really don't have words for this one. You just sort of have to see it for yourself. Good? Ridiculous? Sad? I really don't know.
No comments:
Post a Comment