#1
I surmise from the fine print that Davis is now forbidden to carry a firearm. Maybe the ISI will send in a couple more guys on a motorbike to finish the job.
#2
"But Senior Deputy District Attorney Rich Orman said his office planned to upgrade the charges to a felony, to better reflect the seriousness of the crime."
The article only mentioned physical contact, nothing about "serious nature". It really is not much to go on.
I suspect Davis is kind of on a short fuse after his five star tour of the Pakistani Legal system and really just does not want to be messed with right now, Thank You.
#2
Or we could just let them legalize drugs like they already want to. Not illegal = no huge stacks of cash = nothing to fight over = treat it like a medical problem in the open and not a criminal or military one. Just ask Portugal.
#3
Iblis, without drug prohibition funding criminals we'd need far less prisons and police...
You'd be putting loads of the police and prison workers out of a job you nasty nasty person, plus the swat team wouldn't be needed as much and where's the fun in that?
That'd be the same Portugal that suddenly started seeing violence in the countryside as the drug dealers set up house, bringing their enforcers and ne'er-do-wells? I'm not sure they've concluded it was a wise decision, but it most definitely is a difficult one to reverse.
Yeah, we never have those problems when drugs are outlawed. As for reversing the decision, we've already done it. Heroin was once sold under the Bayer brand. Coca Cola -- well, you know.
Not saying that drugs are good. They aren't. But prohibition just makes it all much, much worse.
#9
Hire a few million unemployed US citizens to stand elbow to elbow along the southern border would at least temporarily solve a lot of problems for the US.
#10
No, Anguper. The drug runners would shoot one, the rest would run away, and the border would be at least as open as it is now.
Now offer a BOUNTY on border crossers.... well, wolves become an endangered species for a century.
#1
Erogan is going in so many directions. I'd bet everyone is scratching their heads on this one. Like Obama after he is gone things should settle down. The only thing that may prolong it is if he alines with China. I prefer to think of him as a mood swing.
I thought you might be interested in reviewing a brief report released today by Global Frontier Analytics (GFA) indicating that Romney's recent success in media message push-through is concurrent with his rise in the polls. The report examines both Romney and Perry's media presence since early July using measurements such as share of conversation and message reach, prominence, and frequency.
Of particular note is the way in which media coverage of the two candidates was collected and analyzed - GFA developed and utilized software tools and analysis methods that leverage advances in computational semantics to structure and understand unstructured data such as text news reports, blog entries, and microblog streams. This technology enables GFA to collect and study media with unprecedented scope and precision.
6. Keynesian economics are about over for a generation. The antidote to the Bush $4 trillion debt was not another $4 trillion in less than half the time. With near-zero interest rates, record numbers of Americans on food stamps and unemployment, an annual federal budget $2 trillion higher than just ten years ago, and nearly $16 trillion in aggregate debt and all this along with a moribund economy few will any longer believe that printing more money and growing government work. More of what has not worked wont magically start to work.
7. Barack Obama has essentially ended the smears against the Bush-Cheney anti-terrorism protocols. Having himself smeared the prior administration relentlessly, he became de facto its greatest defender. One cannot insist past practices were immoral or illegal and then embrace or expand them all. War criminal will recede into the insanity of yesteryear, given that no logician could figure out how waterboarding three self-confessed mass murderers was a crime, while vaporizing two thousand suspected terrorists including American citizens by Hellfire missiles is not. Apparently Guantanamo is no longer a gulag, rendition no longer a crime, preventive detention no longer a shredding of the Constitution.
8. Politics simply dont change. Obama first embraced and then rejected filibusters the only constant was his relative political position. Gridlock was good in 2005, bad in 2011. The suggestion that we should cancel congressional elections for a few years comes from a Democratic governor, not a cigar-chewing, epauletted ex-general. Exasperated liberals call for circumventing the messy democratic process, the bothersome Electoral College, the unfairness of senatorial elections apparently not out of long-expressed philosophical worries, but out of angst that the wonderful system that elected Obama and gave him huge congressional majorities suddenly became unworkable, say, around November 2010.
[Dawn] ONCE again, the beat of war drums has Paks marching in unison. Since Adm Mike Mullen hinted at the possibility of US action against turban safe havens within Pakistain, the cacophony that normally defines Pak public discourse has distilled into glorious harmony: 'Go America Go'.
Why thank you! So kind of y'all to cheer for us in the traditional American way.
Religious parties, urban youth posting status updates on Facebook, the Senate Standing Committee on Defence, talk show hosts, secular politicians -- the disparate elements that comprise our country now speak with a unified voice against America.
At the All-Party Conference, sworn enemies joined hands to champion Pak illusory sovereignty, and, in the words of our
information minister, "the majority consensus ... turned into a unanimous consensus". Across print and electronic media, there have been calls for bickering politicians to give it a rest so that Pakistain can unite under the glorious banner of jihad. We have beaten our chests and the dull ache that remains is meant to be a sorry substitute for nationalism.
At other times, we are Sindhis, Mohajirs, Baloch or Pakhtuns. We are Sunni, Ahl-e-Hadith, Ahmedi or Christian. Secularists or Islamists. Pipliyas or Noon-Leaguers. Burgers or UMTs. It is only when an outsider supposedly poses an existential threat that we become Paks. The madness that normally defines us is channelled into a mad love for the country.
Rather than spare a thought for what Pakistain represents, we obsess over which external enemy wants to break it apart. For years, that enemy has been India. This past week, it has been the US. Sometimes, it's a strange combination of the two. And if you're an adherent of Zaid Hamid's, it's the unlikely trifecta of India, the US and Israel coming together with nothing better to do than destabilise Pakistain. The more threats we face from the big bad world, the more easily we are distracted from our divisive politics.
After 1947, Pakistain had to define itself as 'not India'. That definition necessitated demonising India and constructing our national identity as a process of negation: we are not Indians; we are not Hindus; we are not South Asians. What are we then?
The answer to that question should have been: 'we are Pak'. But the early failure to articulate that national identity, along with its values, aspirations and reach, led to a more feeble response. Instead of grappling with the difficult question of identity, we opted for the most obvious, most coherent label: 'we are Mohammedans'.
From the start, a religious identity has been a poor substitute for a national identity, as demonstrated by the anti-Ahmedi riots of the 1950s, the independence of East Pakistain, the public protests against the Hudood Ordinances. In recent years, gunnies have further devastated the rationale of using Islam as the glue that binds Pakistain. Mohammedanjacket wallahs kill Mohammedans at prayer; Mohammedan-majority sectarian groups kill Mohammedan minorities; Mohammedan state security forces kill Mohammedan separatists; Mohammedan bodyguards kill Mohammedan governors; and other Mohammedan countries like Kuwait want to have nothing to do with us as they issue blanket visa bans for Paks.
Just as our national identity was coming up for review, just as we were being forced by the spiralling situation to assess the basis of our national identity and reconsider what we mean by Pak, we have found another external enemy. No longer do we need to consider what we stand for, what we collectively believe in, or what we jointly pursue as a polity. We now know that being Pak means being anti-American, united in the cause of jihad against US boots on the ground.
Pakistain's need to define itself against external enemies has been previously recognised, but its implications for democracy are less understood. The repeated failure of democracy in Pakistain does not only stem from the lack of education and incurable corruption of politicos. To a large extent, democracy fails because Paks do not know what they are voting for when they go to the polls. Democracy thrives when a population subscribes to the idea of a nation and believes that its collective values and aspirations are worth pursuing. Democracy is proactive -- you take the initiative to vote because you want to claim a stake in the dream that your national identity offers. 'India Shining'. Brazil's 'Order and Progress'. Indonesia's 'Together We Can'. 'America's 'Yes We Can'.
Enshrined in these clichéd political slogans are collective goals -- higher literacy rates, economic development, innovation, Olympic gold medals, space programmes. These are examples of nationalism founded on recognition of what is wrong with a country and what could be better. 'Pakistain Khappay' doesn't quite have the same ring, especially since it is imbued with the irony of meaning radically different things in the ethnic languages spoken across Pakistain.
Without a coherent national identity -- a joint vision or goal -- you cannot inspire the activism that democracy necessitates.
You cannot vote simply to hate an external enemy. You cannot vote for war. You cannot vote for what you are not. In the absence of the activism of democracy, you are left with the fatalism of patronage. A nation that obsesses over external threats is one that values patronage, because patronage means protection from what may come. Valuing patronage is in some ways the antithesis of voting in a democracy: rather than shape your future, you seek protection from it. Ironically, patronage also nullifies the future possibility of democracy because it reiterates the importance of that which is local -- kinship, ethnicity, language, sect -- over what is national. As long as we seek protection from an external enemy, we will seek patrons, even if they come in uniform --and it is thus that history readies to repeat itself.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/04/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
#1
Have to take issue with the last paragraph: "Patronage" implies dependency. Its an implicit admission that one is impotent to act and needs someone else to survive.
[Dawn] HIGH-PROFILE terrorist attacks in South Asia over the last few years demonstrate that Death Eaters are either quick learners or are part of the same nexus. Similarities in a few terrorist attacks across different countries and regions can be shrugged off as copycat acts, but when the likeness almost becomes a trademark it merits a closer look.
In recent years, Death Eaters have gone after new targets and evolved new tactics in a near-simultaneous manner that point to an increasing exchange of notes, so to speak. Shared ideological, political and, sometimes, operational objectives bring Death Eaters closer.
In that context, similarities between the Sept 13 attacks on US and NATO ...the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. A cautionary tale of cost-benefit analysis.... targets in Afghanistan, the assault on Pakistain's Mehran naval air force base in May this year and the November 2008 Mumbai attacks may not be surprising.
The operational and tactical likeness of these attacks reflects that Death Eaters have enhanced their operational capabilities and demands counterterrorism measures that are commensurate with the new challenges.
A broader conceptual framework and effective coordination among states facing the shared threat of terrorism can build an effective pre-emptive mechanism. But such a synchronised effort to take on terrorism has not been achieved even a decade after 9/11. Interstate cooperation against terrorism remains a pipe dream in South Asia in particular, even as Death Eaters grow ever-savvy and constantly find sophisticated techniques of striking their targets.
The security crisis and the insurgency that erupted in Iraq after the US invasion of that country in 2003 was a watershed moment in the history of terrorism. Iraq proved a virtual laboratory for Death Eaters where Al Qaeda tried and perfected new and sophisticated techniques of wreaking havoc, which were later exported to other regions, including Afghanistan and Pakistain.
Al Qaeda's edge in terrorism expertise influenced the Taliban and other turban movements in the region, which had been under immense pressure from the state after 9/11. Al Qaeda's support in the form of improved capabilities and techniques for striking their targets was a virtual lifeline for them.
The February 2008 suicide kaboom in Kandahar that targeted a dog-fight festival was the first in Afghanistan where the tactics could be compared to those involving attacks targeting pilgrims in Iraq starting 2003. The objective was similar: to kill as many members of opponent tribes, sects and political adversaries as possible, even if they were civilians. More destructive suicide jackets were developed to maximise the impact.
Also in 2008, Pakistain saw progression in techniques in three major terrorist attacks which targeted the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) building in Lahore and the Danish embassy and Marriott hotel in Islamabad. In the FIA attack, Death Eaters used a pickup truck loaded with over 50kg of C4 plastic explosives, in a tactic that was strikingly similar to the April 2005 botched attack on Iraq's infamous Abu Ghraib prison by Al Qaeda, with the aim of freeing detainees and targeting US forces in a series of car boomings. The method adopted in the devastating Marriott suicide kaboom showed their enhanced capabilities and the ability to strike at will the most protected parts of the country.
The Mumbai attacks were another defining moment, when a new technique of urban guerrilla warfare proved brutally effective in the hands of terrorists, who have since developed such tactics further, adding elements of suicide kaboom to it and striking in Pakistain and Afghanistan more than a dozen times.
Terrorists imitated the Mumbai attacks in four major assaults in Pakistain in 2009: an attack on GHQ in Rawalpindi, an assault on the Sri Lankan cricket team in Lahore and two attacks on a police training school in the same city. Afghanistan suffered a similar attack in Kabul in February 2010 when Death Eaters targeted a shopping centre, a guesthouse and a hotel.
One tactic has been to target a particular city through repeated strikes with a view to terrorising the population and enhancing the impact of attacks beyond just physical damage. In 2009, Death Eaters repeatedly targeted Beautiful Downtown Peshawar in that manner and in 2010 they focused on Lahore. In 2011, Bloody Karachi seems to be high on the terrorists' list. In Afghanistan, initially Kandahar was a magnet for such sustained attacks and now it is Kabul.
At the level of nexus, things have been much clearer. Terrorist groups that shared similar ideological and political ambitions not only borrowed tactics and techniques ascribed to each other, but also mirrored other terrorist outfits' approaches by merging or otherwise converging, transforming or altering their organizational composition. This happened in the case of the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistain, Lashkar-i-Jhangvi and a few Kashmire-based turban groups, mainly Brigade 313 headed by Ilyas Kashmiri.Under Al Qaeda's influence these outfits have transformed and have been imitating each other on the tactical, operational and organizational levels. Typically, the influence has impacted smaller groups who had been struggling to survive or had material deficiencies and required external help to survive. Al Qaeda has been more than willing to help out, through both ideological and operational support. There is little doubt that quid pro quo has been involved.
That was the conclusion that slain Pak journalist and expert on terrorism reporting, Syed Saleem Shahzad, had reached in his book Inside Al Qaeda and the Taliban, pointing out that Al Qaeda was in the driving seat and that the Taliban and other turban groups were essentially acting like its foot soldiers.
He had argued that the Mumbai attacks were planned by Al Qaeda, which used Lashkar-i-Taiba to execute the plan. He believed that Al Qaeda wanted to destabilise the region to break the alliance of the ruling Mohammedan elites and the masses with the West and make the region the base for a global caliphate.
The challenges that terrorism poses in the 21st century are complex, and in many cases insurmountable in the absence of interstate cooperation. Effective collaborations are impossible without trust, to state the obvious. When partners in the war on terror talk to each other through the media or consider arm-twisting and threats of use of force to be the preferred modes for winning cooperation, prospects for teamwork are doomed. By acting in this manner, states fall into the trap of terrorists.
No prizes for guessing which party to this new kind of war ends up the winner then and which ends up shooting itself in the foot.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/04/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[13 views]
Top|| File under: al-Qaeda in Pakistan
#2
But not because we are giving food to the needy - So how do tax dollars end up supporting junk food? Subsidies largely focus on three top crops (wheat, corn, and soybeans) and reward the farmers that grow them, keeping prices low for consumers
It's farm subsidies that are making all of us fat. Except me - I have big bones. Especially my belly bone.
Posted by: Bobby ||
10/04/2011 6:52 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Poor people tend to obesity because carbs and fats are a lot cheaper than protein. And despite the demands of the health nuts, and decades of coercion trying to change their diets, they still reject fruits and vegetables.
They load children's free lunches with that stuff, and they dump it and either eat nothing, or junk food they bring from home. Been that way since the 1960s or even earlier.
And the health freaks have zero pattern recognition, so keep at it, generation after generation.
#4
Typical nanny state PC BS. Half the "obesity" epidemic was managed by a simple change to the definition of obese.
Those supposedly horrible height weight charts of the old days that at least took some account of body type were replaced by a stupidly simple but science sounding jargon called BMI. BMI has two variables height and weight, everything else is crap of the AGW model variety. Change a few hidden numbers and hey presto everyone is fat.
#5
Before the 90s, most height/weight calculations relied upon those generated by the insurance industry which had a vested interest in the gamble on life insurance. In the 90s the government got involved and the usual suspects trying to extend their rationale for existence, used a much smaller sample than the insurance industry had employed for generations to create the new charts. Immediately, Michael Jordan in his prime met the classification as overweight.
#6
It's not the food. It's the lack of exercise. People ate terribly greasy foods a hundred years ago but they also worked sunup to sundown and were terribly skinny by today's standards. Today, people play football ... on their Xboxes.
BMI is a sham. As a young weight lifter I would have been classified as near obese even though I was also a long distance runner. And I loved pizza and relied on candy bars for extra calories.
Half the "obesity" epidemic was managed by a simple change to the definition of obese.
Hey, they saw what changing the definitions did for the "poverty" industry...
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
10/04/2011 12:03 Comments ||
Top||
#8
RC Yep.
My wife does have a weight problem. Long ago I watched a show by Covert Bailey about % of body fat being the best indicator of HEALTHY weight. What he said made a lot of sense and he pointed out that he was hired by the San Diego Chargers football team to help several of their players lose weight.
When he tested them they were all under 10% body fat and one was at 2%. The fact is that the rules as preached then and now don't work for individuals. If they did every family would have 2.5 children.......and they'd classify that 1/2 kid as overweight.
All of the MDs I have talked to agree quietly that BMI is a total crock.
#10
When I look at group pictures of average Americans of all ages, races & social classes, in history books, newspapers, archives, or family collections, the massive increase of body size is quite obvious. Americans have been known to eat well, on the average, since the 1700's. There have always been some massively obese people, but very very few until the last few decades.
Modern medicine really does not know and cannot explain the obvious increase in body mass for average Americans over the last 60 years.
If the causes are ever well proven, I suspect genetics, increased food intake and decreased exercise will NOT be the major factors.
#12
When he tested them they were all under 10% body fat and one was at 2%.
I suspect Covert Bailey did not test his subjects on their prior use of anabolic steroids, human growth hormone, insulin, etc., which together promote increased muscle mass while lowering BMI.
Just look at the body weight statistics of pro football players over the last 70 years or so, the trend of massive increase in weight is rather obvious. I doubt increased exercise or decreased food intake has anything to do with THAT.
#14
All of the MDs I have talked to agree quietly that BMI is a total crock. You never talked to THIS MD. BMI is useful to estimate body fat ratios, nutrition, and especially trends to body composition over the decades. On the other hand, finagling with BMI statistics to constantly increase the percentage of Americans defined as overweight is simply lying, but you don't need an MD degree or advice from an MD to see that.
#15
"Been that way since the 1960s or even earlier. I was around then. There were very few massively obese people in that era."
I agree, the women of my mother's era were all very slim. I really don't remember any fat moms around....but then, I don't remember going to county fairs and having people trying to eat the most high-fat, high calorie, deep fried chunk of whatever, as a national pasttime either.
#16
I went to county fairs in that era also. They were selling fatty crap foods similar to what they sell nowadays, but the people (on the average) attending the fairs were all much thinner. The variety of such stuff has definitely increased, but I think that's due to increased customer demand.
#17
I suspect epigenetics, environmental toxins and/or long term infections will turn out to be important factors in the obesity epidemic, but that's just my SWAG.
#20
High-fructose corn syrup Pardon me for doubting that a high-fructose-corn-syrup-free diet would relieve anyone's obesity, no matter how long the diet might be followed.
#21
We seemed to start getting fatter in the early 1970's. High-fructose corn syrup got invented and started being widely used in convenience foods (apparently it's cheaper than sugar) about the same time.
Yes, I know correlation is not causation. I also know we eat far too much outside of mealtime, and also at meals.
That being said, I do my best to avoid foods made with high-fructose corn syrup and/or hydrogenated fats. I'm not a "natural" nut, but why go for fake when real will do?
Posted by: Barbara ||
10/04/2011 18:00 Comments ||
Top||
#22
My own guess would be posture. More time sitting than standing.
#23
There have been sedentary occupations for centuries, and, yes, sedentary people have tended to weigh more than more-active people. Always correct the denominator of any sample. The increase in sedentary occupations, IMO, still doesn't explain the remarkable gains of body weight / size in the last few decades. High school drum majorettes and receptionists alike have been ballooning out.
#25
I've been making night visits to Wally World for over 25 years. Way back then, most of the customers were skinny compared to nowadays, however weird they might otherwise look.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
ONCE again, the beat of war drums has Paks marching in unison. Since Adm Mike Mullen hinted at the possibility of US action against
