What's Up with Pakistan?

A hint about how a bunch of insurgents whose only allegiance hinges on mutual hatred and a desire for power could come so close to the national capitol of Pakistan without that country's military doing more than making a show appears in today's New York Times. Helen Cooper and Mark Mazzetti report on the Obama administration's "reaching out to the former prime minister, … whose ties to Islamists could help" the current president of Pakistan. In other words, major forces within Pakistan and its military see a political advantage to allowing the insurgents to run amok in the nation, threatening to gain access to nuclear weapons.

In the U. S., the "loyal opposition" just has Dick "the Emporor" Cheney running around crying "the sky is falling," while in places like Pakistan, the opposition allows an insurgency to murder people. Guess there is something to be greatful for in all of this.

Who Will Obama Pick?

The big question now is who will President Obama pick for the Supreme Court vacancy now that Justice Souter has decided to retire. He wants a woman, and a woman "of color" would please quite a few people, but appointing his wife might be more than congress could stand for. Sec. of State Clinton would be ideal, but then he'd have to fill her current position. (See today's New York Times.)

I told my daughter yesterday that she'd make a great candidate. She's had six months experience at the International Criminal court and I'd be glad to help her out with any decisions, but she said she'd already been accepted at grad school and didn't think she could fit Supreme Court duties in with her busy schedule. I reminded her that the court isn't like the old days. They don't hear all that many cases anymore, and she could probably fit her time in Washington into her weekends. In addition, the justices all have a bevy of clerks who prepare their questions for them and write their conclusions, and if a 79-year-old could do the job, then why not a 23-year-old?

When the Gypsies Became Settlers:

In the year 2009, "the economics of more" came to a halt. Suddenly the nation of perpetual motion ran out of places to go. Or maybe they just recognized that they had been racing around in a circle all along.

The big news is that fewer people changed residences between March 2007 and March 2008 than at any time since 1962, when the U. S. population contained 120 million fewer people than it does today. (See The New York Times' story.)

Is Pakistan the New Vietnam or Korea?

Or none of the above? It's too early to tell, but various forces (generally mislabeled) under the heading of "Taliban" are closing in on the Pakistan capital are threatening the current leadership. Considering the dangers, especially the nuclear weapons that government possesses, America may once again find itself drawn into a civil war on the other side of the world.

Certainly, there are major differences in this situation when compared to those earlier ones. India, for one, has a vested interest in Pakistan not falling under the control of radical groups in possession of nuclear weapons. Neither China nor Russia has any interest in seeing this happen either.

One of the questions that is almost impossible to answer is what would a government in Pakistan lead by these insurgent forces actually look like? Most of the focus has been on the concern that the rest of the world would have when such anti western forces possess nuclear weapons, but there should be some considerable doubt that this would ever happen.

It is unlikely that the Pakistan military would surrender itself to the insurgents. More likely that the top leadership will attempt to use the instability of the insurgents to come to power itself. No government in Pakistan has been able to rule without the backing and full complicity of the military there.

Hey! Vice! Why the Hypocritical Turn on Secrecy?

Dick "the Emperor" Cheney fought to keep everything in the government a big secret when he was vice president, but now that the heat is on over the legality and the effectiveness of his leadership in torturing prisoners, he's demanding that more and more government documents be made public. What's that all about?

Dick "I-shoot-friends-in-the-face" Cheney is feeling the heat. The call for investigations leading to criminal charges is growing louder, and the assertion is being promulgated that torturing people didn't lead to much of any worthwhile information, despite all the proof that the TV show 24 provided. (Uh, … that's just a fantasy world. Oops!)

Cheney has asserted all along that torturing people provided critical information that stopped further terrorist attacks—along with furnishing him with sadistic glee—but there has never been any proof. Possibly more secret government documents could do that.

Not likely. What Cheney now wants out in the public are documents that illustrate other people besides himself were making assertions. He's trying to defray responsibility and create an atmosphere of doubt. It's an old defense attorney's ploy. Well, it worked for Alaskan senator Stevens, who, although guilty as sin, escaped jail time because the prosecution withheld evidence.

Note that F.B.I director Robert S. Mueller is on the record as stating that he did not believe coercive methods brought about any useful information. (See The New York Times' story.)

The Price of Oil:

New York Times' writer Jad Mouawad explains the factors keeping the price of gasoline at the pump at around $2 a gallon while consumption of oil world wide has gone down and reserves are at their highest peek since 1980.

A number of factors are envolved, including investors who are using oil as a hedge against a weakening dollar and suppliers who have continued to cutback production. Most experts forecast gasoline prices rising in the U. S. during the summer driving season to an average of about $2.35 or more per gallon.