Archive for November 9th, 2007

Musharraf sets himself up for final disaster

Friday, November 9th, 2007

Musharraf has finally done it. He crossed the last line of acceptability in his struggle to retain power to the bitter end. He has arrested the opposition leader in Pakistan and set the stage even more firmly for a flagrant violation of his own Constitution… or not, that’s right, he already overrode it citing some civil neccessity for something or other. So the beatdowns of the last week have been legal, but arresting the opposition leader wasn’t. At least not in the international court of let’s-tell-you-how-to-run-your-own-country, and no it doesn’t matter how big of a crook Bhutto actually is. If that were a standard for silencing opposition, there would be no third world political structures to speak of (and little in the second or first, for that matter…).

musharraf.jpg

One thing dictators (or Democrats, for that matter) never seem to understand is that losing an election does not mean that your country is becoming undemocratic, it simply means that less voters aree with you than you had hoped. In other words, dictators (and Democrats) tend to have a difficulty distinguishing between a threat to their political dominance and a threat to the democratic system. I find that terribly funny.

Things could have turn out differently. The international community is tired of dealing with little brown guys who screw over all the other little brown guys in their dirty, chaotic countries so it would have been completely acceptable by modern political standards to forget about the recent opposition crackdowns in Pakistan and label them as “police actions against civil disruption” or some other polite nonsense.

Elections would be held, Musharraf would lose, or rig the election win, or whatever, but either way he’d be in one piece at the end of the day. If he won he’d still be in charge of his part of the third world and continue to enjoy all the perks stepping on the less fortunate in smelly countries affords a dictator, and if he lost he’d be living comfortably in England or someplace else conveniently distant from the social chaos and depravities he presided over. He could write a book and make millions selling fantastic lies about what an amazing lion he was in the War on Terror. The guy’s rich anyway. I’m sure the Pakistani’s would pay him to leave in any case.

But now he’s gone and put his foot right in it. The US was trying hard to not pay any attention to his recent behaviour and continued to push the idea that he’s no longer an oppressive dictator but a rehabilitated, benevolent dictator, a true ally in the War on Terror and a patriot who supports the causes of the average Pakistani.

Well, that’s gone and the US will have to do something about this. It won’t stand by and let that many people get worked over for that long, not when America is already heavily engaged with that country. Of course, the Pakistanis won’t care to thank America once its over and will continue to plot on American soldiers and desire to murder all non-Muslim inhabitants of the Great Satan… but America will at least guarantee that its a democratically elected Islamic leadership that wants to kill all of us infidels instead of a dictator who allows only a mere fraction of the America-killing sentiment to be heard.

Big news! A well-written political article!

Friday, November 9th, 2007

This blew me away. I’ve never seen a well-written, balanced article about politics come from the AP. Lately, the AP has decided that they’re all a bunch of Dick Traceys and have been conducting “investigations” and things instead of just reporting the news. In other words, they have often been guilty of trying to seed the headlines to generate news rather than merely reporting it. Its better for business, I suppose.

balance.jpg

Anyway, check this article out. It covers the key differences between the Democrats and the Republican (including the White House) spending policies. Without getting into gory details and exhaustive anti-Republican ranting, this articles simply lays out what is going on and what the status of current bills are.

The publication of a balanced political article is big news of its own. Lately more AP articles in the Politics section have read more like editorials than news items. This is completely the opposite, and I’m impressed.

Funeral protesting church contradicting itself

Friday, November 9th, 2007

We’ve all heard about the church that’s protesting military funerals, holding signs up like “God hates fags”, “Too late to pray” and other such nonsense. Their position is that since the US “supports” homosexuality, all US soldiers go to Hell. Moreover, they maintain that our casualties in Iraq are caused by God’s anger at the US for its pruported “support” of homosexuality.

phelps-nutbags.jpg

I’m pretty sure the US “position” (if there is such a thing) on gays goes something like this: Say whatever you want about fags, that’s your business; do whatever you want with your genetalia, that’s your business also. Sounds pretty fair. Permission to talk crap about men who like penis in their butts (within limits, of course) and permission to have a penis in your butt if you want to. Doesn’t sound so much like support as just an individual right to be gay or not or whatever. Who really cares?

Oh yeah… Those guys

I find this to be a quite contradictory message. For one, the US casualties in Iraq are extremely low. Ridiculously low, in fact. Taking out the strongest Arab army in the world proved to be a piece of cake for all those American fag lovers and fighting the big bad insurgency hasn’t really cost much more than would have been lost on military-related accidents over the same period anyway. Second, this group isn’t at the courthouse in Hawaii, California or anywhere in New England protesting state sactioned gay marriage, they are protesting the military which is the last remaining American institution, public or private, where homosexuality is officially not tolerated. Whoops… missed your target a little there…

If God is trying to show us that He’s all worked up about us supporting gays, He’s certainly choosing a circumspect and very low-key way of doing it. In fact, I’d go so far as saying that God hasn’t decided to let his (supposed) discomfort with the state of American sexuality generally known or felt. This is assuming that homosexuality is a big enough deal that He would choose that over good old fashioned heterosexual rape to get upset about in the first place. It sounds a lot to me like this particularly ungracious pastor has jumped to some wild conclusions in persuit of his own private hatreds to me. That is to say, he, not God, is certainly confident that our Iraq casualties are due to the existence of an active butt-sex community in the US and he wants us to know it.

In the interest of fairness, I should say that I’m a Methodist. I suppose that makes me only a little-bit Christian in these people’s eyes. These folks missed the point about man’s inability to judge another in a spiritual sense. Anyway, anti-Biblical Christians being intolerant does fit the media’s agenda much better than intolerance being enforced through Islam, so the media should continue to be on this like flies on shit.

Julie Myers in trouble for employee’s costume at party… does this make sense?

Friday, November 9th, 2007

Here’s a new one for you. Julie Myers, the Director of Immigration and Customs enforcement, is in some hot water now because one of her employees dressed up like an escaped prisoner for a Halloween party. Nobody at the party had a problem with this and apparently that costume won a prize for being done exceptionally well. There were a few costumes that some of her employees (or more likely, one, ultra-sensitive pussy) found offensive and she appologized for those and everybody forgot about it. It was Halloween. Big deal.

rm1330.jpg

The media is persecuting her now because of the prisoner costume that nobody complained about that won the prize. That’s right, the media decided to start poking around and stir shit up… again. They have already compelled her to make a public statement denouncing the costume, which I find ridiculous.

The offensive part of it is that her agency is responsible for arresting and jailing illegal immigrants. Personally, I don’t see how we can be offended on behalf of people who are not extended rights as US citizens. Anyway, since when did Halloween have to be so bitchified anyway? I remember when I was a kid wearing zombie, pirate, cowboy, [whatever] costumes. That’s what you do on Halloween. Why is it ok for my brother to have dressed up as an escaped prisoner (prompted by the Disney version of Robin Hood when we were kids) one year and not OK for that guy at Myers’ party? Should we call a Congressional hearing to re-examine my brother’s “judgement” now in light of this world-shattering revelation that he, too, once dressed as an escaped prisoner? Or is it my father who should be on trial, as he was, effective, my brother’s senior supervisor at that period in his life?

Who is even declaring what motivated this guy to choose that costume (other than its in the top 20 costume ideas, right behind “Muslim suicide bomber”)? Maybe he watched Prison Break recently. I hear it was a big hit in the US…

This is ridiculous. I don’t see how protesting military funerals can be an acceptable way to exercise your First Amendment rights and wearing a prisoner costume to a Halloween party is not. Oh, that’s right, I’m missing the point, Myers is getting in trouble for something someone else did. Probably because someone else wants her job… as usual in Washington.

O.J. gets the book thrown at him, plaintiff should be flogged

Friday, November 9th, 2007

O.J. being in trouble again isn’t news to anyone, but check the plaintiff out! This guy his hilarious. He called “Inside Edition” before he called the police, or so things increasingly seem.

oj-hmmm.jpg

It is understandable for the justice system of every state to want to throw the book at O.J. for any and all infractions after letting him get away with murder on the Equal Opportunity Act, but this plaintiff’s exploitation of the event for monetary gain is damaging to the case in any event. We already know when O.J. goes to court it becomes a circus with reality jumping through flaming hoops and the law on the flying trapese. Why would you risk all that with calling a TV tabloid before you call the police and discussing book deals (what a boring book!) before the trial is even in full session?

In any case, the plaintiff being a jackass doesn’t reduce the severity of O.J.’s lunacy and wreckless behaviour. O.J. should get whatever any other aquitted murder who commits the several felonies he did in the course of this exceedingly weird robbery would get. And the plaintiff should be put in the stocks somewhere unfriendly.

This whole thing is just getting too weird. Wow.

Will Japan ever feel comfortable using its military?

Friday, November 9th, 2007

Today the US Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, spoke at a university in Tokyo about Japanese involvement in international security missions. He was very pointed about Japan’s necessary engagement in the North Korea nuclear negotiations, and also mentioned broader Japanese security roles globally.

jds-haruna.png

There are two very different views of Japan based on two entirely different motivations.

There is the view that Japan is a first world nation that has even more m Australia, the more Center EU states (which would include France now), etc. The motivating factor for this view is that peacekeeping is a pretty expensive undertaking and Japan should bear some of the burden, particularly since its the only Asian country (or likely, soon, France). The Successfully Freedom-Having Country Club would like to see their Asian cousin join the fun every now and then.

There is the opposing view that Japan is a naturally evil country filled with wretched, soulless, repressed robot ninja samurai killers who are waiting for any chance to rebuild an army and run around atrocitying the world. This view is held exclusively by South Korea, North Korea and China. The motivation for this view is money, pure and simple. The more evil any of those three makes Japan out to be, the more money they get from Japan in several forms including tax breaks, political assistance, fiscal assistance, public works funding, etc. As big as the Chinese economy is, they are not an honest broker, and very little business can go on in Asia without the Japanese brokering it somewhere as an insurance. China needs and wants Japan, but they want Japan to be low in some way, always and forever. Of course, that is China’s eventual goal for the entire world, but that is beyond the scope of this article. South Korea, while much more honest in business than China (not that that’s saying much), is motivated by an indirect form of monetary gain for the leadership. The more one bashes Japan in South Korea, the better you sound. This can, and usually is, in complete conflict with reality, but reality has never been the point in South Korean politics. North Korea wants to see Japan just go away. Its the only country nearby that is allied with the US, and its a mighty big US ally to have next door when you’re trying to be under the radar with all the evil stuff you want to do, such as destabilizing the Middle East, wage a proxy war against Europe and the US through Iran, etc.

Note that none of these last motivations have anything to do with World War II. That was a long time ago already and nobody in power today actually gives a crocodile penis about that stuff anymore. Its just a great, and I mean great, political wrapping for whatever you want to say in the DPRK, South Korea or China. Its like hating George Bush if you are a Democrat in the US. For example, in the US we hear things like “This healthcare bill will give children (and lazy adults) free healthcare… and help us bring down George Bush!” In South Korea you would hear something like “This healthcare bill will give children (and angsty adults) more US subsidized public free stuff… and help us kill all the Japanese!

Now, of course, I’m embellishing a little… but not that much, sadly.

So we have Japan being pulled in two different directions politically. The stronger countries in Japan’s own region are very against any Japanese military role in anything (or any Japanese role in anything, more precisely) because they feel it will undermine their future dominance, regardless how preposterous a Korean dominance of Asia actually is. Don’t tell a Korean that, South or North, because they believe they won World War II by themselves somehow, despite having been a contributing colony during that period… They’ve got some pretty interesting history books…

Why should we promote an increasing Japanese role in international security missions? Its fairly simple. Asia is fundamentally more powerful than the rest of the world. Whoever controls Asia in the future will by proxy control the world, whether by intention or not, much in the same way that America (and in some cases Europe) largely control events in the world, whether by intention or not. There are only two countries out here socially stable enough to control and lead Asia, China and Japan.

The Chinese political intention has always been that its right and proper for the masses to work for the benefit of the top 300 on the country. They would like to extend this to the world and have the whole world work for the top 300 living only in China. This is directly in line with Chinese history and culture too, and most marginally educated Chinese think this is a good idea. Japan, on the other hand, has largely adopted the ideals of democracy and personal freedom and these days, the idea of the masses breaking their backs for the top 300 would never work out. Japan also has absolutely no plans of domination, whereas China is currently actively in pursuit of it. It is likely that if Japan were in primacy here, they would not recognize it for quite some time and likely continue to follow the American lead. China, on the other hand, has very specific plans to control internal politics in all the surrounding Asian countries to the extent that when Thailand and Vietnam are considering a new trade policy, they will consider Chinese interests first.

As we have a choice between China or Japan to lead Asia, its fairly obvious that Japan would be the better choice… which is why we have had Gates up there today talking about a stronger Japanese international security role, and have had over the last six years or so a concentrated push to get Japan out into the world more and more. Change is going to happen whether we like it or not, so its better to manage the change and go with it than let it happen on its own and go the wrong way.

Once again, I didn’t insert a ton of references. If someone wants to push me to it, I will. I’m just running low on time these days.