Is this a case of monkey see, monkey do. Maybe Musharraf is just copying Bush in this Dictatorship Race.

by Gallaher (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 990 comments [34 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 7, 2007 at 12:23:19 PM

  (0+)

Hi, Gallaher,

I DO wonder what Musharraf if thinking. I saw him when he appeared on The Daily Show with Jon Stewert. He seemed, well, pleasant and reasonable. So much for my judge of character via the little screen! I sure wish Bhutto could return to power . . . Newsweek called Pakistan the most dangerous country on Earth. Wow! 

by Tumerica (14 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 44 comments) on Wednesday, Nov 7, 2007 at 1:59:22 PM

  (0+)

This article reasserts the obvious. "Smack is whack" and avoid it prior to posting. A blind monkey in a Bali bar can see how much the assertions for Mystery Country 2 were qualified. With terms like "chipping" and "creeping", clearly the United States is rushing headlong towards a dictatorship like Pakistan. Any faster, in fact, and I'd tell Al Gore to hurry up and make those glaciers melt quicker so that they can make way for this locomotive! For a comparative analysis, I'd like for one person who's recently spent a month in Pakistan and a month in the United States to report their honest opinion on the two countries and see if they agree with the linkage made within the article. I really, really would like to see that analysis. Personally, each time I've taken a similar "day trip" to those oh-so-interesting countries on the world circuit, I return with a profound sense of relief that I AM an American. You can allege all you want about chipping, creeping, and chirping, but you truly are ignorant of reality if you think the United States is just three steps (whatever that represents) behind Pakistan. I've asked it before here. What will you say, I wonder, when you see President Bush leaving office on January 20, 2009 after you've portrayed him as nothing BUT a dictator waiting in the wings? Aside from the "good riddance" part, you'd better be prepared to eat a massive slice of humble pie. With his departure on that day, Bush will have proved wrong each and every nutter by showing you his respect for the Constitution and duty to it. "Long ago I heard a tale I never will forget. The time was in the telling; on the bank the scene was set," – ironically from the Big Country song "The Seer".

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 7, 2007 at 12:47:23 PM

  (0+)

Hi, Tom,

Isn't it freaky that such radically different countries could have some scary things in common with our respective administrations? What does that say about the health of our democracy? This is what I wanted to explore with this post.

As to suggestions to go spend a month in each country, it's taking the thought-provocation to a literal extreme. Kinda like explaining to your toddler why the cow cannot actually jump over the moon in the famous nursery rhyme.

Gratitude to be living where I am is also unrelated. I lived five years on the other side of the planet and was utterly thrilled to return home. I am grateful and I am extremely unhappy with my current government. By no means are these two feelings mutually exclusive.

by Tumerica (14 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 44 comments) on Wednesday, Nov 7, 2007 at 1:56:09 PM

  (0+)

Perception has fast become reality nowadays.  This perception issue is captured perfectly in the movie “Jaws”: 

“Hooper: Well, uh, it doesn't make much sense for a guy who hates the water to live on an island... “

Martin: It's only an island if you look at it from the water. “ 

“What does that say about the health of our democracy?” 

The reality (and not a false perception) of the American Administration tells me that the democracy, the republic, and the Constitution are greatly intact in light of the incredible attacks that have been launched upon it by mostly foreign terrorist elements. 

“Kinda like explaining to your toddler why the cow cannot actually jump over the moon in the famous nursery rhyme.” 

Why is this a “literal extreme”, which I admit your example was, “…I'd like for one person who's recently spent a month in Pakistan and a month in the United States…”?  Of the six-billion plus people that walk this Earth, no one has done this recently?  I ask that they have already “spent” not “spend”.  Regardless, the point of the challenge was not to create gratitude towards America, although I have no doubt it would, but rather to either confirm or deny your assertions that, “…such radically different countries could have some scary things in common with our respective administrations.”  My vote is for “that” person who has “spent” the time in each country to “deny” your assertions and summarize that the American Administration looks like Little Orphan Annie compared to Freddy Krueger. 

“Gratitude to be living where I am is also unrelated.”  

I did not connect gratitude to a literal extreme, but you did.  A sense of relief upon returning to America is what I detailed.  But now that we’re discussing gratitude – the affording of pleasure or contentment - doesn’t it… kinda… sorta… sounds like it’s tied directly to happy or unhappy – ness?  So you’re aware that residing in America affords you pleasure and contentment but you’re not satisfied; displeased or discontented with America’s government…?  Have the actions of the American government adversely impacted the affording of your personal pleasure and contentment?  Have you felt ungrateful, then, because the American government continues to not satisfy, displease, or make you discontent by its actions?   

Or do you just have feeling of betrayal and perhaps anger because someone or something didn’t live up to your expectation?  If you left the house today expecting the kids to clean their rooms (and yet you did not tell or remind them to clean their rooms), only to return and find the rooms still a mess, who do you have to “blame” there?  The kids for not reading your mind or you for not accepting that your expectations were a bit fanciful to begin with were not met?  I think the later is to “blame”, although I think that the wrong word.  The later is to “accept” that which is and cannot be controlled directly by the blamer. 

Perhaps this is a bit too deep for many because it reeks of personal responsibility, but its reasoning is valid.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 7, 2007 at 3:33:24 PM

  (0+)

I wonder, when you see President Bush leaving office on January 20, 2009 after you've portrayed him as nothing BUT a dictator waiting in the wings?

http://www.slate.com/id/2176185

By Ron Rosenbaum
Posted Friday, Oct. 19, 2007, at 2:23 PM ET

Return with me to 1970, another moment of seething paranoia two years before Richard Nixon's 1972 re-election campaign, before Watergate was even a gleam in Gordon Liddy's eyes. A time of war and of an increasingly frustrated and suspicious anti-war movement. It was my first year as a reporter, and the whole episode started with a cab driver from Staten Island.

As historian and frequent Slate contributor David Greenberg recounts it in his thoughtful book Nixon's Shadow, "the rumor [that Nixon had a secret plan to cancel the '72 presidential election] first appeared in print on April 5 in the Portland Oregonian, the Staten Island Advance and other Newhouse-owned newspapers. According to the item, the administration had asked the RAND Corporation ... to study whether 'rebellious factions using force or bomb threats would make it unsafe to conduct an election' and how the president might respond. Ron Rosenbaum, a reporter from the Village Voice, heard about the article from a Staten Island cab driver and investigated. He reported in The Voice on April 16 that RAND and the administration denied that any such study existed, but then playfully pointed out that they would surely deny it if it were true. Rosenbaum added that the country would just have to wait until 1972 to see."

Lesson here: Don't get too "playful" when writing about conspiracy theories. The problem with being "playful" back then was that much of the anti-war movement read the Voice at the time, and my story ignited a firestorm of paranoia. Soon there were "documents" of dubious authenticity circulating that purported to be RAND memos outlining plans to round up and lock up leaders of the anti-war movement. Eventually Pat Moynihan, then a Nixon consigliere, thundered against the rumor as an example of the intrusion of irrationality into politics.

The thing is, there's nothing wrong with planning for "continuity of government," especially in the nuclear age. Planning for continuity doesn't necessarily mean plotting a coup, although that's the way my story was read and spread. (Of course, meanwhile-proving that reality can outrun paranoia-the Nixon administration was planning to subvert the election, anyway, with the assortment of illegal actions and dirty tricks that became known as Watergate.)

Still, there's nothing I feel the need to apologize about for pursuing that story then (or this one now). Indeed, it was marginally possible back then, when the anti-war movement had become massive and some were turning to violence, that the RAND Corp. might have been involved in planning how to maintain "continuity" in the face of violent disruptions.

by Jay Lovestone (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 103 comments) on Wednesday, Nov 7, 2007 at 1:36:44 PM

  (0+)

Another hoax,

click here

by Jay Lovestone (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 103 comments) on Wednesday, Nov 7, 2007 at 1:39:25 PM

  (0+)