Kashmir: Pakistan's Credibility Gap

Interesting editorial in The Pakistan Observer:

KASHMIR, which received little attention of the global community during the last few years, is now once again on the world agenda, thanks to the sacrifices of Kashmiri people. In the past, India was able to hoodwink the international public opinion with the force of intensive propaganda equating the freedom struggle of Kashmiri people with terrorism, an issue of serious concern to the world these days.

If this is the position of the Pakistan government as well, delusion has completely set in. Pakistan strongly believes that it has the diplomatic muscle to "internationalize" Kashmir, when in reality it's still treading water (and has been for years). There are good reasons why Pakistan has yet to reach the tipping point on Kashmir.

First of all, Pakistan faces a serious credibility gap on Kashmir. Pakistan says it's for the self-determination of the Kashmiri people, but this will require Pakistan give self-determination to people of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (also absurdly known as "Azad" Kashmir, or "Free" Kashmir). A nice idea except for the fact that Pakistan tightly controls "Azad" Kashmir. It's occupied by military and security forces. Media access is also tightly-controlled: allowing Pakistan to stage-manage "Azad" Kashmir to show to the world a Potemkin village of happy and content Kashmiris. The world community should ask why there's no media access to "Azad" Kashmir. The world community should also ask why Pakistan ceded "disputed" territory to China in abrogation of the same United Nation resolution Pakistan likes to tout.

Second, is the lie that Pakistan did not train Kashmir freedom fighters, but only offering political and diplomatic support, and send them to Kashmir. Recently, former Gen. Pervez Musharraf admitted that Pakistan indeed trained militants (Pakistan calls them "freedom fighters") to create mayhem in India-occupied Kashmir, ostensibly to bring India to the negotiating table, but also to lay the groundwork for an eventual Pakistan annexation. Many of these militants weren't even Kashmiris, but Pakistan jihadists contracted to kill not only Indian military, security and police forces, but civilians as well. The militants specifically targeted pro-India and moderate Kashmiris, especially those who opposed Pakistani interference. This has also been clearly established.

Third, the use of militants has been Pakistan's playbook since the days of battling with the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Pakistan created the Taliban to control Afghanistan after the Soviet Union withdrew. It has been using militants in Kashmir since 1989. These same militants have connections not only to each other, but to Al-Qaeda as well. It's good to note that some prominent members of Al-Qaeda have been Pakistani as well, including Sheik Khalid Mohammed and Ramzi Yousef, both of whom are in American custody. These same militants are responsible for killing of countless innocent Pakistanis through suicide bombings, shootings, and outright murder, all under the protection of the Pakistani military. It's also interesting to note that many of these militant groups hold massive rallies that are well-attended by government functionaries and prominent political leaders. These are the very same leaders who head the government and are pushing for Kashmiri rights to self-determination. People do take notice.

And fourth, Pakistan is weak with little international influence. It may have a first-rate military and nuclear weapons, but it's a near-failed state with a corrupt political system, weak democratic institutions, and an economy that constantly teeters on failure. Pakistan constantly carries a begging bowl. Honestly, do beggars have any influence other being pitied. Not even the vaunted Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) cares about Kashmir. Yes, it has issued statements, communiqués, etc, but it has done little beyond that. Members of the OIC, though sympathetic to Pakistan as a fellow Islamic country, are not willing to take on India over Kashmir.

This is not to say India is completely absolved from its role in Kashmir. I believe this and past governments have often acted in a ham-fisted manner in Kashmir, and should correct its behavior. But if Pakistan wants to have final solution on Kashmir, it should get its entire house in order, top to bottom. Pakistan should realize that having nuclear weapons and a big army is not enough to be a player on the world state, but strong democratic institutions and a stable, growing economy will give it more creditability.

Gen. Musharraf Arming Of Terrorists

Former president/general/chief executive/benign dictator Pervez Musharraf made some revelatory comments in an interview with German magazine Der Spiegel, which can be found here. Some key excerpts:

SPIEGEL: When Pakistan's rulers lose power, they traditionally get imprisoned or murdered by their rivals. Why are you founding a party to, once again, get involved in politics instead of enjoying retirement in London, which is at least a safe place?

Musharraf: No risk, no gain. We unfortunately have a culture of vendetta and vindictiveness in Pakistan. But there is no case of corruption or fraud or anything against me at the moment. My political opponents, especially Nawaz Sharif, would love to create a case against me -- that I am corrupt or have committed fraud or some such. They do their best to achieve that, but they haven't succeeded. Even if they did, I would reply in court. Risks need to be taken.

Gen. Musharraf is still bitter about Mr. Sharif. I suppose I would be to if someone tried to kill me. Mr. Sharif nearly got Gen. Musharraf killed, and his fellow passengers, when refusing to let his plane land in Pakistan. And the feeling is mutual. Mr. Sharif is no doubt peeved about his banishment from Pakistan after Gen. Musharraf seized power. It will be interesting to see how Gen. Musharraf's feud with Mr. Sharif will play out during the next election.

SPIEGEL: Why did you form militant underground groups to fight India in Kashmir?

Musharraf: They were indeed formed. The government turned a blind eye because they wanted India to discuss Kashmir.

SPIEGEL: It was the Pakistani security forces that trained them.

Musharraf: The West was ignoring the resolution of the Kashmir issue, which is the core issue of Pakistan. We expected the West -- especially the United States and important countries like Germany -- to resolve the Kashmir issue. Has Germany done that?

SPIEGEL: Does that give Pakistan the right to train underground fighters?

Musharraf: Yes, it is the right of any country to promote its own interests when India is not prepared to discuss Kashmir at the United Nations and is not prepared to resolve the dispute in a peaceful manner.

Not surprising. Gen. Musharraf confirms what was long suspected. As was discovered, many of the Kashmiri "freedom fighters" weren't even Kashmiri, but Pakistani jihadist armed and trained by the Pakistani military (mostly through its intelligence agency, the ISI). Many of these jihadist now consort with the Pakistani Taliban, al-Qaeda, or some other outfit. Pakistan never learns; it likes to play with fire.

SPIEGEL: And how can a nuclear arsenal be safe when high-ranking officers support proliferation or even personally profit from it, as has been alleged? The nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan claims that the Pakistani army monitored and organized deals with countries like North Korea and Iran.

Musharraf: That is wrong, absolutely wrong. Mr. Khan is a characterless man.

Attacking Dr. Khan has been modus operandi since day one, but it's mostly a smokescreen to cover Gen. Musharraf's own shady involvement. The Pakistani military not only knew exactly what was going on, they sanctioned it, with or without the approval of the government. The military, like Pakistani politicians, are kleptocrats. Officers like to line their pockets as much as the next thieving politico, and selling nuclear technology to anybody with an unyielding bank balance is par for the course. Gen. Musharraf may not have personally profited from the deals (who really knows), but he either looked the other way or condoned it. When Pakistan was caught red-handed, Dr. Khan was made a scapegoat. I'm sorry but Gen. Musharraf lacks credibility on this score.

Reading the interview, Gen. Musharraf clearly shows his lack of political refinement. He still carries himself like a soldier, speaking his mind without caring what anybody thinks about him. This will be his undoing.

France Needs Economic Liberty

Frontline has a good article highlighting France's pension crisis. Not that I agree with the article's leftist slant, but it does clearly illustrate the bankruptcy that's the socialist welfare state, and should be a signal to the United States to get its own welfare system in order.

France, like the rest of Europe, is facing a demographic crisis that threatens to imperil its pension system.

The hole in the public pension system has come about because France has an ageing population where there are more pensioners than active workers who pay into the pension fund. If not tackled in time, the present system is expected to ratchet up losses to the tune of 50 billion Euros by 2020. In 1945, when the system was introduced, there were roughly four workers for each retiree in France; today the ratio has shrunk to 1.5 workers per retiree.

Assuming demographic trends remain unchanged, the French government wants to raise the retirement from 60 to 62 for the short-term, eventually raising it to 67 by 2018. This will put France on par with the rest of Europe. Of course, France can add more workers in the short-term by increasing immigration; or increase the birth-rate in the long-term. But given the anti-immigrant sentiment in France, the short-term solution is not an option.

Two factors have upset this balance: the fact that longevity has increased – the life expectancy for men is 85 and for women is 87 now – while the birth rate has dropped. The age pyramid in the developed world has been inverted, with old people far outnumbering the young. At the same time, technological advance has meant that in many industries men have been replaced by machines, leading to persistently high rates of unemployment and placing an additional burden on state-funded unemployment benefit schemes.

The writer blames high unemployment not on France's anti-business policies but on capitalism's obsession with replacing human beings with technology for the sake of more profit. This is typical leftist dogma Frontline is known for.

Naturally, France's trade unions are opposed to any reforms. They agree changes are needed to keep the system solvent, but the sacrifices need to be made, not by them, but elsewhere.

"We are opposed to Sarkozy's specific proposals because they are unjust. We understand that because of changing demographics the system has to be changed, adapted and we accept that. What we reject is this particular reform. The government is adamant about raising the retirement age. But other solutions can be found. Sarkozy has consistently given tax breaks to his rich friends and business supporters. We can look at other means of financing. This proposal is unjust because it penalises two categories of workers who find themselves on the lowest rung of the ladder – manual workers and women,” said Francois Chereque, the leader of the CFDT, one of France's eight major trade unions.

Raising taxes in a country where taxes are extremely high seems suicidal. Soaking the rich is always a populist theme, but punishing those with capital to invest in jobs is hardly productive. Capital will go where there is money to be made, not taxed.

“"I am a 52-year-old divorced mother of four. My husband had a modest job and it was a struggle to make ends meet. I abandoned my job to stay home, to cook and clean and bring up our children. Six years ago I returned to work. My age meant that it took a long time to find a job, and as an office cleaner I make barely 900 euros a month. I am tired, used-up, paid less than my male counterparts. In this situation to ask me to carry on until 67 is an ignominy."

I feel for this woman, but its France's statist economic policies that are to blame. Its anti-business environment make creating jobs difficult in a country with a history of chronic high unemployment. Not only are the unemployed not working, thus not contributing to the pension system, but are themselves receiving generous welfare benefits. It's a doubly-whammy that is clearly unsustainable.

What France needs is a free-market economic regime with less regulation and taxation and more pro-growth policies. What France needs is more freedom.

US Needs Pakistan More Than Pakistan Needs US

The relationship between the United States and Pakistan reminds me of two drug addicts whose co-dependency put them on a mutual path to self-destruction. And like drug addicts, they enable each other in ways that feed their respective addictions: Pakistan gets money to fund its military and line the pockets of its politicians; and the United States-led NATO force gets a secure base in order to eliminate terrorism in Afghanistan (which it hasn't done despite being in that blight of a country for nearly a decade).

One can argue who needs the other more, but I would place my bet on the United States. For the United States, Pakistan is the only game in town. Iran is not an option; and the central Asian republics are unreliable. This dependency was brought to light when Pakistan closed its border to NATO resupply columns after its sovereignty was violated by NATO jets. The United States couldn't do anything about it except to agree to work it out with Pakistan.

What would happen if, for example, Pakistan got a backbone and told the United States to take a hike? Meaning, no use of Pakistani territory-- air, land, or sea-- to support operations in Afghanistan. No cooperation. No sharing of intelligence. No troops in FATA or Waziristan. No diplomatic or political support. Nothing whatsoever! This scenario is wholly plausible if the Pakistani government gave a shit about their country.

But they don't

Political Murder In London

Until I read about his murder, I didn't even know who Dr. Imran Farooq was, or the fact he was a founding member of Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM), a political party representing the Urdu-speaking Muslims who migrated to Pakistan from India after partition. They took up residents in Karachi, a polyglot city of 18 million people, which is also their political base. The MQM is very conspiratorial, with a penchant for violence and, as many Karachites will attest, for general mayhem. The leader of the MQM is one Altaf Hussein, who is both autocratic and paranoid. Though he resides in London as a political refugee, he runs the party he help found with an iron grip.

So when the particulars came out, the brutal death of Dr. Farooq was put in its proper perspective. In fact, a number of prominent MQM leaders have been killed in Karachi. By whom, no one really knows, but this is how the serpentine world of Pakistani politics often works. So the murder of Dr. Farooq was a cold-blooded political assassination, pure and simple. A list of possible suspects would be a long one. The question to ask, of course, is: what is to gain form by the murder of Dr. Farooq?

Admittedly, he was an easy target. His killer laid await from him as he left his residence and stabbed him multiple times. Dr. Farooq had no protection. He wasn't active in politics anymore, but was leading a normal life in a London suburb. Like Altaf Hussein, he, too, was a political refugee.

Altaf Hussein believes Dr. Farooq was killed to intimidate him, and that he well may be next. Altaf Hussein claims foreign intrigue as well, whatever that means. Some have claimed that the current Pakistani government, let by the PPP, an avowed enemy of MQM, ordered the hit to scare Altaf. Lately, Altaf has called for a military takeover and the dismantling of the feudal system that controls Pakistan. Given that the PPP derives its power from the feudal lords who reside in the Sindh hinterland, such talk would not really be welcomed.

Some are claiming that it was Altaf Hussein who ordered the assassination. News reports claim that Dr. Farooq, sick of the ethnic factionalism of Pakistani politics, was planning to join Pervez Musharraf's new political party, the All Pakistan Muslim League. That someone of Dr. Farooq's stature was to join would have been a betrayal to Altaf Hussein's. So he silenced Dr. Farooq as a signal to other MQM dissidents, to think twice about crossing him.

It's good to note, however, that Altaf Hussein likes to dance with the devil. He doesn't mind turning Karachi into a powder keg to suit his political purpose. In fact, the murder of Dr. Farooq would fit nicely into his plans to launch a "French revolution" in Pakistan. There is little chance of this happening as the MQM is despised outside of Karachi.

Will the killer ever be found? Who knows. But things have gotten a bit dangerous; not even London is safe anymore.

NOTE: Great article about the murder here

Islamaphobia Or Genuine Fear

I've been reading Robert Spencer's JihadWatch.org off and on since it started. Recently, Spencer's been part of a movement that, rightly, opposes the Islamic center/mosque being built near Ground Zero in New York. For his efforts, Spencer has been branded an "Islamaphobe" and a bigot by his opponents, even though his targets are Islamists, jihadists, and other extremists who incite violence, not law-abiding Muslims.

The charge of "Islamophobia" is a canard used by critics to claim that the United States intrinsically hates Islam and Muslims. This is patently untrue. Americans have been very accommodating of Muslims well before and well after 9/11. Anti-Muslim sentiment is a recent phenomenon and its root lie not in Americans themselves, but the actions of certain Muslims. As Robert Spencer writes:

It is not at all established that "Islamophobia" really is growing. In fact, the FBI has recently released data establishing that hate crimes against Muslims are comparatively rare. But if there is any actual suspicion of or negative feelings toward Muslims in the United States, it is solely and wholly the responsibility of Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood jihadist; Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Christmas underwear jihadist; Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, who killed one soldier and murdered another in a jihad shooting outside a military recruiting station in Little Rock, Ark.; Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square jihadist; Khaled Sheikh Mohammed and Osama bin Laden on 9/11; the London jihad bombers of July 7, 2005; and so many others.

These attacks were not committed on foreign soil but right here in the United States, some by United States citizens. So it's only natural many American feel ill at ease about Muslims in their midst, but, please, don't call it "Islamaphobia."

Pakistan Attacks Critical Journalists

According to this New York Times article, Pakistan's military and intelligence agencies routinely threaten, arrest and torture journalists who displease them.

An investigative reporter for a major Pakistani newspaper was on his way home from dinner here on a recent night when men in black commando garb stopped his car, blindfolded him and drove him to a house on the outskirts of town.

There, he says, he was beaten and stripped naked. His head and eyebrows were shaved, and he was videotaped in humiliating positions by assailants who he and other journalists believe were affiliated with the country’s powerful spy agency.

At one point, while he lay face down on the floor with his hands cuffed behind him, his captors made clear why he had been singled out for punishment: for writing against the government. “If you can’t avoid rape,” one taunted him, “enjoy it.”

If you think about it, it's not all that surprising. Rarely does the Pakistan press carry articles that put the military or the intelligence agencies (mostly the I.S.I) in a bad light. In fact, the opposite is true, there are way too many articles that praise the military to the sky: they can do no wrong, the only worthwhile institution Pakistan has, give it all the money it needs, etc. Why?

One reason for the deference, according to a Pakistani intelligence official who has worked with the media cell of the ISI, is that the agency keeps many journalists on its payroll.

Again, not surprising. Some journalists took the money willingly. Some, I'm sure, were forced to take it after being threatened, knowing full well they could be blackmailed later on.

Pakistan's Case For Debt Relief

Zahid Malik, Editor-in-Chief of The Pakistan Observer, the most jingoistic of Pakistan's English-language dailies, admits that Pakistan, which possesses both a world-class army and nuclear weapons, is an economic basket case. He wants Pakistan to ask the world community, after taking into consideration the devastating floods ravaging the country, to "write-off" $53 billion in foreign debt. Mr. Malik didn't use the word "forgive" because that would mean Pakistan is begging the world community, which, according to Mr. Malik, they are clearly not.

It is a very interesting article that highlights both Pakistan's image problem and the writer's delusions. Before we go on, it's good to note, however. that Mr. Malik does makes a good case for debt relief:

Now that it is recognized internationally and by the UN that losses from the unprecedented floods were more than the 2004 tsunami, 2005 Pak earthquake and the 2010 Haiti earthquake, therefore, I think Pakistan needs much more than just assistance for relief and rehabilitation. The losses to infrastructure alone are so high that Pakistan would not be able to recoup in the next five years. Almost the entire Kharif crop of the country has either been washed away or adversely affected by the floods translating into losses worth trillions of rupees to the farmers and the national economy

No one can argue with this line of reasoning, but the question is: is anyone listening?

If we look to the response of international community received so far, though we do not want to make any comparison, it is like peanuts to the assistance given to Haiti. We have been pledged just over $ 815 million as against $ 5.3 billion aid to Haiti. The international community went in a big way for Haiti because two former American Presidents Clinton and Bush pursued the case of relief and reconstruction of the tiny Island State.

Interesting comparison. Haiti is one of the poorest countries on this planet; so wretchedly poor, in fact, that it possesses little or anything of value except people, and most of them live in abject poverty. Pakistan, on the other hand, is no Haiti. It is rich in natural resources, fertile agricultural land, and has an industrial base. Pakistan is definitely richer than Haiti. For example, Pakistan spends like a drunken sailor to buy weapons for its military. Currently it is shopping for a contract to buy radar systems for its new JF-17 fighter aircraft, a deal estimated over $1 billion. In fact, defense spending is the second biggest line item of Pakistan's annual budget, behind debt servicing. This from a country that not only has nuclear weapons, but affirmed the right to use them (against India, who else?) as a first-strike weapon.

Mr. Malik thinks that not only should the world community write off Pakistan's foreign debt, but compensate it for being on the front line in the "global war on terror":

Therefore, what I am talking about is building a case quantifying the facts by the experts and with input from the Provincial Governments and endorsed by the DNA of WB and ADB about the huge flood losses. Aid for the flood damages should also be accompanied by a demand of $ 60 billion which according to my assessment Pakistan suffered in the war on terror and the resulting losses of human lives, infrastructure and so many other expenses. In fact Pakistan has been suffering continuously since 1979 when we joined the civilised world to oust the Soviet Union from Afghanistan.

Mr. Malik does not say how he arrived at the princely sum of $60 billion, but given how much money the United States has given Pakistan since 1979, and will give in the future, it sounds like something an extortionist or a blackmailer would demand. Let's, for the sake of argument, we forgive Pakistan's foreign debt and "compensate" it to the tune of $60 billion, what guarantee do we have Pakistan will spend the money on human development and rebuilding its infrastructure? How much of it will be squandered, stolen, or handed over to the military to maintain an army it doesn't need?

Because ven in the best of times, Pakistan was a beggar country. Almost every Pakistani leader begs China, Saudi Arabia and the United States for money on a regular basis. Yet it has the temerity to demand equal treatment, like a partner or friend-- an equal. What do you call a "friend" who keeps borrowing money from you and never pays you back even though he can? A moocher. A freeloader. Haiti, at least, admits its poor, but Pakistan is poor but doesn't want to admit it.

Will the world community forgive Pakistan's foreign debt? I don't think so. Pakistan just cannot be trusted: specifically, its leadership cannot be trusted. At best, the debt will be restructured in some fashion so Pakistan can use the savings for flood relief. The world community would be more amenable, in my opinion, if Pakistan agreed to certain conditions, but Mr. Malik makes it clear that Pakistan's sovereignty is not negotiable.

Pity. Hope Mr. Malik realizes 'beggars cannot be choosers'.

Cut Chemist: Spinner Extraordinaire

Cut Chemist is one of the best hip-hop DJs around. His name is spoken in the same breath as DJ Shadow, Q-Bert, etc. His collaborations with Jurassic 5 was just sweet. URB magazine, which I use to read back in the day (the late 1990s), has a nice interview with him:

Grand Master Citizens: Cut Chemist from Society Theory on Vimeo.

Pakistan's Leadership Deficit

Asif Ali Zardari has to be one of the worst (if not the worst) president in Pakistan’s brief history! The man has a set of brass balls to behave the way he does, and say things, that illuminates his incompetence.

For one thing, while Pakistan is facing one of its worst natural disasters, Zardari is on a grand tour of Europe. While visiting Russia, he made the following statement:

“Pakistan will come out of this a stronger nation,” Zardari said at a meeting with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. “We have... the capabilities, we have the people, and all tragedies always unite nations. This tragedy will again unite us,” he said. President Zardari called upon the international community and the regional partners to help Pakistan out of the difficult situation caused by floods.

It beggars the belief he would say such a thing, but it does display his leadership style: He doesn’t have any! He should be in Pakistan, doing all he can, providing succor and relief to the victims. No. Zardari can’t be bothered to mingle with the riff-raff.

While asking the world community for donations, Zardari, the billionaire, was visiting his various properties around Europe, estimated to be valued at over $1 billion. And God only knows how many millions are tucked away in secret bank accounts. Zardari could easily sell a fraction of his holdings to fund flood relief and still have plenty left to indulge his hedonistic lifestyle. But we know Zardari’s history all too well: the man is greedy.

This is bad enough, but the man also has no sense of national honor. When British Prime Minister David Cameron bad-mouthed Pakistan on Indian soil, protocol dictates a vigorous and visible protest. For example, Pakistan should have cancelled Zardari’s forthcoming trip to England. After all, national honor is at stake. Zardari not only went forward with the trip but was photographed smiling and shaking hands with Cameron like a couple of university chums. It was a shameful display.

Pakistan, in my opinion, faces a serious leadership deficit. Is there one decent fellow in Pakistan who can lead this country out of darkness?

ESPN Adds A Much Needed Nice Touch

ESPN has added a cool new navigation feature on its front page. Instead of clicking on the sports to go to that particular page, a mouseover event gives the user a neat little dropdown box, listing all the key links for that page, hence saving a step. Take a look:

I visit ESPN multiple times a day, so this is a welcome step. Cool thing is that the dropdown box also displays your favorite teams for quick access to their respective pages. Nice design touch, ESPN!

Why Lady Gaga Is A Superstar!

Lady Gaga is on the cover of the September issue of Vanity Fair.

I presume this is what she "really" looks like, without the excessive make-up, outrageous costumes and teased-up hair. I honestly never seen her in a "normal" way.

In spite of her overpowering flamboyance, I love her music. She's pure pop. Closest thing we have to a superstar since Madonna, who Lady Gaga shamelessly emulates, from style to sound. Like Madonna, Lady Gaga is a product of the dance club scene, where she absorbed countless hours of disco-inflected music. It is this glue that binds her music together into high-energy dance anthems.

Is Lady Gaga a genius? These days the word 'genius' is used to describe anyone with a modicum of talent. Geniuses are defined by their uniqueness, as much by their eccentricities. In my opinion, Lady Gaga has both. Her skills as a singer, musician, and producers are so unfathomably great, that it's not much of a stretch to call her, well, a genius.

This is only my opinion, of course. I don't have to justify them to anyone.

What Lady Gaga has done, like Madonna before her, is she made dance music cool again. I've been a dance music fan since I first heard my first disco song in the late 1970's (Most probably the Bee Gees, but I can't remember the specific moment or song). The arrival of Madonna and Michael Jackson made the 1980's cool. Can Lady Gaga do the same for the post-internet era?

I hope so

A Reminder Why Air Travel Sucks

Whether or not his actions were justified, Steven Slater has become the poster boy for our collective disgust with air travel. The problem with air travel is not just the airlines, which is a given, but passengers, who demand too much for too little.

For me, anyway, air travel should be a simple affair: get me from point A to B safely and on time; don’t lose my luggage (especially if I pay for the privilege); no need to feed me or slake my thirst (airline food sucks anyway, and I can bring my own bottle of water); and no need to entertain me as I can either read a book or listen to my iPod.

Other than that, I will gladly pay the stated fare plus fees and taxes to fly wherever I want.

Libertarians Are True Believers In Small Government

I don’t often listen to conservative talk radio: I find them to be mendacious, the hosts to be total jerks and repetitious, but I especially save my contempt for the people who call these shows, claiming to know what they’re talking about when they're not; most of whom are total idiots, mere mouth-breathers, in my humble opinion.

One so-called conservative caller made the spurious claim that libertarians believe in no government at all, whereas conservative believe in small government. Libertarians are not anarchists! We believe in the rule of law as much as conservatives (probably more), which require specific institutions to carry them out—which, of course, is enshrined in government.

And since we’re on the topic of small government, libertarians can claim, unequivocally, that they, not conservatives, are the true torchbearers of small government. As we have witnessed, from Reagan to both Bush presidents, conservatives (and liberals) have increased the size of government through a combination of profligate spending, burdensome regulations, and limiting of civil liberties.

For all intents and purposes, conservatives have abandoned small government altogether. Is it any wonder that libertarian ideas are gaining wider currency in the Republican party? It’s time for conservative to walk in the wilderness for awhile and think about what a small government-type is.

How Toy Story 3 Is About Freedom

The libertarian Adam Smith Institute opines that Toy Story 3 is an animated allegory on the pitfalls of socialism. I never thought about Toy Story 3 in stark political terms, but I’ll be damned if it’s not true!

However, there are more movies that harp on the evils of capitalism. One clear cut example is Chicken Run, an animated film about a group of chickens plotting to escape from the clutches of an evil farmer, who is bent on turning them into chicken pot pies in order to maximize profits. The chickens, acting collectively (like good Marxists), manage to thwart the farmer’s plans and fly the coop, so to speak. On the surface, it is a fun little movie, but the underlying theme is more insidious. On this score, Toy Story 3 is a welcome antidote.

Whatever the political themes, both films are a joy to watch.