Before I get into the Pakistan stuff I wanted to highlight this blog entry from MSN Money.
Its an excellent entry about the economic realities of "shopping for a better world" as well as the ludicrousness of a $5/lb. heirloom turkey. She makes a lot of points about shopping at Wal-Mart that are absolutely correct - its real easy to put yourself on a soapbox when you can actually afford more expensive groceries. Activists often never consider how their self-righteousness actually affects people they didn't think about to begin with... due to said self-righteousness. I think a larger point is also made, although its unspoken - if you eat gourmet on Thanksgiving, you just might be a douchebag. Thats my take on it though!
Pakistan - I'm appalled at what is going on there. I think our government made a critical mistake putting all our GWOT eggs in one Pakistani basket - now we are reaping what we are sowing. However, if you've paid attention to American history at all, you'd know that this isn't the first, the second or even the third time that we have allied ourselves with disturbing individuals. Noam Chomsky will bore you to tears talking about it. During WWII we were allied with Communist Russia; during the Iran-Iraq war, we backed Saddam Hussein. It has always been done in the spirit of living with working with a lesser enemy if it means the destruction of a greater enemy. This is how the US of A, for better or worse, has always done things.
In particular, the US Congress has the power to eliminate funding that Pakistan currently enjoys. Why don't they do it? I have to say, Democrats have been incredibly disappointing. We went through an entire election cycle filled to the brim with anti-Bush bullshit and Democrats ended up riding a Blue Dog wave to a slimmest of majorities in the Senate and an unstable majority in the House. The Kool-Aid drinking non-thinkers actually are blaming President Bush when in fact the one group of people that could affect Musharraf the most at this point (from an American perspective, anyway) is actually a bi-partisan Congress with a backbone. After their exhilarating veto override of the recent $23 billion
pork barrel water bill that was rolled down the aisles of Congress, you'd think they would be up for a fight against something they all should deplore.
So, why is nothing being done? Congress are sitting on their hands because of the same reasons that war funding hasn't been cut off yet - there is absolutely no political will to make a decision that could have a directly negative result. What about the Bush Administration? At first their lack of action and cautioned words puzzled me until the obvious answer struck - there is no interest, despite how shady Musharraf is, to have a nuclear Pakistan with a power vacuum of any sort. Meddling in other countries affairs has left egg on our faces twice (or more, if your heart bleeds for those Communist revolutions Reagan snuffed in the 80's) in the last 50 years. I hesitate to say that the Bush Administration is being wisely cautious, since the two words almost never go together let alone separately in a convo about President Bush. Certain political realities and self-interest are precluding us from doing the right thing - we can leave it at that.
The Administration is unsure about to what degree they can actually affect things in Pakistan at the moment. These aren't the days of the CIA in the 60's where we can go in covertly and place in a figurehead. These days we replace leaders by direct military force. Remember - Pakistan to a degree is radicalized and people there definitely love Osama more than Musharraf. Nobody is interested in having that country fall into Islamicist hands. At the moment it appears that Bhutto would certainly be the leader and essentially is the leader, if not officially at least in spirit. She has twice been removed on allegations of corruption, and it has to be mentioned that under her government she directly funded and gave military support to the Taliban. Now she says she is against them. So, how do you choose between an aspiring dictator and a former Taliban supporter who "allegedly" skimmed off of government contracts and banked nearly $2 billion in Switzerland? If its to be believed, she is no different than Saddam Hussein was in terms of ripping off her own people for personal gain.
In the end, I always say that as long as the people want it, democracy should win every time. The truth is that it doesn't. We cannot force Musharraf to resign any more than we could have prevented the coup that put him in power. Its an obvious problem, however, that the world is looking to us for a strong condemnation and because we are unsure of the outcome we say very little. Then again, never in the course of American history have we held our allies to a higher standard. I love my country - there is no better on earth. Immigrants even break the law to come here for a better life. However, there are two things that I can say make me embarrassed to be American; the first is our legacy of slavery and the second is our seemingly time-tested need to ally with dysfunctional leaders in order to protect or pursue our own interests. Couldn't we have done better than Pakistan and Musharraf? Personally I don't care if Bhutto is corrupt - if the people want her, they should have her. They can sort out their own mess later, but I suspect if she was overthrown twice there is nothing stopping her from being overthrown a third time - perhaps by the Taliban.
From what I have heard I have to disagree with you completely. It isn't about more money. It is about the fact that when I pay $60 for a DVD of 24 the writers don't get any money. When Heroes is on line for free and NBC gets ad money for that show the person who wrote that episode gets no money for it. In the music the writer gets a cut every time a song is played and they are supposed to when ever it is played publicly at a stadium or a juke box or where ever that is all the writers want is money for there cration. What about if NBC figures out that they can get the same about of add dollars for a show on the internet or even through say and itunes type of place as on TV. Oh yeah and then they don't have to give the writers there cut. I'm not saying the writers should be greedy and over do it. But lets face it with out writers there would be no show. Yes the same thing can be said for actors but they have no creative control. Both sides need to see that they need to do what is best for buisiness and the future of it and work out a fair deal for both sides.