Killing in the Name... of Money

“The best soldiers are not warlike” (Chinese Proverb)

Mercenaries have been around, in one form or another, for ages.

But getting at what, exactly, a mercenary is and how it's different than your typical legitimate soldier turns out to be tricky. Our intuitions might drive you to say that a mercenary is anyone who wages or participates in war primarily for the remuneration she'll receive for that service. But that definition won't work. It won't work because we can think of someone we'd want to call a mercenary who factors in ideologies when deciding who to work for (for instance, no matter how much you might get paid, you might not be willing to work as a mercenary for someone fighting your own country). And, it could also be the case that someone working as a traditional soldier in a legitimate army is only doing so because of the pay; after all, military service is very often boasted as a career opportunity. So the idea of what a mercenary is can't be based on being paid for military services.

So I'm not sure we can get a completely clear and unproblematic conception of what a mercenary is. Nevertheless I think we can work with the idea that a mercenary is someone who looks out for herself, or her interests, while working outside the legitimate traditional institutions of soldiering (even if that involves working for a legitimate traditional institution of soldiering). I realize there's vagueness in that, but I think it's – coupled with the intuitions backing up the initial attempted definition in the preceding paragraph – clear enough to work with for now.

While you might think that mercenaries are only common is poor lil undeveloped countries, war-torn regions, or your mom's bedroom, they're really all over. Recently, and by that I mean in the last few decades, a new form of mercenarism has develop: the private military industry. These kinds of mercenaries are everywhere, but they're typically based in wealthy developed nations. This industry isn't the same as the military industrial complex (which is the business of making arms for the military). Rather, the private military industry is the business of providing “security services"; The private military industry is the business sector comprised of firms whose primary purpose is to offer services (in one form or another) of the variety of what legitimate state militaries traditionally (or theoretically could) provide. So this includes everything from highly trained combat personnel to logistical support. At the end of the day these firms are the modern variant of mercenarism; they offer the same kinds of services offered by “traditional” mercenaries, but they do so via a contemporary international business model; they are corporatized mercenaries. However, while you distill it, this difference doesn't amount to much of a difference at all: we can't meaningfully (or, at least, morally) distinguish them from other kinds of mercenaries in virtue of the fact that those working for a private military industry firm collect themselves under a corporate banner.

Now, having said all that, what's the problem? I mean, sure, most people seem to have the intuition that there is something morally repugnant when it comes to mercenaries: that waging war through mercenaries is, in some way, the wrong way to wage in war; or that the reasons someone might be motivated to act as a mercenary are the wrong reasons to participate in war. But are our intuitions here right? Even if we assume some sort of Just War Theory doctrine, our intuitions about mercenaries still seem indefensible. For instance mercenarism can't be bad because mercenaries do it for the money since soldiers in the regular army could, just the same, do it for nothing but money (and we don't want to say they're on the same moral standing as mercenaries). Nor can we say that mercenarism is bad because mercenaries are necessarily looking out for themselves; a mercenary could be just as motivated by a legitimate cause as a freedom fighter or patriotic soldier. And the fact that they operate outside legitimate traditional institutions of soldiering seems irrelevant as well – we want to say that freedom fighters, civil war fighters, and the like aren't also necessarily immoral because they, like mercenaries, are outside legitimate traditional institutions of soldiering. So what's the unique problem with mercenaries?

Well, in the end I'm not sure there is one. But if there is one, it might be grounded in how we conceptualize mercenaries - that is, that which makes them unique from other kinds of partciapants in war might be the same grounds for why they're morally repugnant. So, if there is any case against mercenarism, that might be where we need to look (or at least start). In the end, though, I'm not sure how fruitful that would be. In the end, our intuitions here might just be wrong. It could be the case that, most often, mercenaries are motivated by the wrong reasons. Yet that's not enough to say mercenarism is necessarily immoral and never okay. I could say more, but I think that’s enough for now. This is just my spur-of-the-moment thoughts on the subject. I could be wrong. After all, what do I know.

An Ode to the World's Greatest Man

“Writing takes time and thought that blogging doesn't allow.” (P.J. O'Rourke)

Today I'm not going to argue in favor of something ridiculous; nor am I gonna point out another thing hippies are doing wrong. Instead I'm going to preach the gospel and praise the greatest man who ever lived. No, I ain't talking about Jesus... I'm talkin' about P.J. O'Rourke.

P.J.'s an interesting guy: when he was in uni he was probably just about as far to the left as someone could be – he was a Maoist. But, over the years, he swung like a pendulum to the far right. What I think is important here is that he remained a cool and interesting guy all along. As he once called himself, he's a “republican party reptile” - someone who, while a staunch conservative, still loves the finer things in life: vices and an absence of stupid people.

The fact that P.J. is, essentially, a senior citizen these days is irrelevant... I'm not going to claim that he's writing is interesting cuz he “lived an interesting life yo”. There's a lot of people who've had interesting lives and written books about 'em. So I think it'd be uninteresting were my reasons for why you should read some P.J. so lame. But even though he has lived an interesting life his writing is interesting because he's such a good writer. I mean, sure, he's written articles detailing the phenomenology of taking ecstasy; what's like to be given a Ferrari and told to drive it from New York to Los Angeles with your boss in the seat beside you; and "How to Drive Fast on Drugs While Getting Your Wing-Wang Squeezed and Not Spill Your Drink". Even if you aren't motivated to experiment with drugs or speed from coast to coast, he write in such a way that it makes you interested - he's able to make it funny while highlighting the parts you secretly want to ask about.

It's important, though, to emphasis an division in his writings; between: his “gonzo journalism”, and important/abstract type things. The important/abstract type stuff he's written about includes the U.S. System of government, economics, war, and the world of business. These, I think, are all important topics and everyone should get some familiarity with them. And P.J. - in virtue of his cleaver writing prose - is, I think, able to make otherwise dry and dreary topics fascinating and fun for the whole family. Here you'll find him, characteristically, addressing serious issues in his trademark comical style; after all he is a satirist (for those undergraduate students out there, think the style of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert). His range as a write can be highlighted by pointing out that he's written a book explaining Adam Smith's convoluted The Wealth of Nations, and had articles (which I, personally, find to be better than his books) published in everything from Playboy to Rolling Stone.

While I think P.J. is just your everyman (that is, the non-idiot cool uncle - who drank too much and did cool shit - you looked up to as an adolescent). I could be wrong. Really, while I've tried to paint an accurate picture of my hero and why your life would be notably better were you to read some of his shit, I'm not sure if I've managed to pull that off. Sadly, I've never met P.J. and I probably never will. Nor will he ever read and give me feedback in a witty lil comment since he's against blogging. (In fact, he doesn't even have a computer; he still sticks with his good ol' typewriter... which I guess just gives him “character”.) So what's I've said here could be off the mark. Nevertheless, the only way you'll really be able to find out if my assesment of him and his work is right is to pick up one of his books. I could say more, but I think that’s enough for now. This is just my spur-of-the-moment thoughts on the subject. I could be wrong. After all, what do I know.

You wouldn't eat a Negro.

Given current market trends in New Zealand, I have a delicious product I am planning to promote and market through the hallowed pages of AWordOnFailure. This product will be a tasty confectionary treat, and I shall call it 'the Negro'. It will be shaped like a small thick-set man, and will be coloured entirely black, except for the lips - which shall be red. And thick. All of these delicious candy treats will come in only one flavour - WATERMELON. I have not yet decided on a slogan to market this entrepreneurial wet-dream of mine. At first I thought 'For a fun family time, you just can't beat a Negro' would be an assured success. But now I am more convinced by the merits of the slogan 'Become a slave to the taste!'. I am not entirely convinced by either, maybe I shall run a poll.

Obviously, I don't intend to do this - and I apologise profusely to anyone who may have been offended by the disgraceful racial slurs in the previous paragraph. It's interesting though, that once upon a time, it would have been socially acceptable to say that. Just as it was socially acceptable to sell this. Hell, I remember when a game of Eeny-Meeny-Miney-Mo, included the lyrics, 'Catch a nigger by the toe, if he squeals let him go...'. New Zealanders, in general, would probably like to think that in 2009, we are more enlightened than this. Well, we....aren't. In fact, there has lately been a huge public outcry over New Zealander's right to 'cherish' and 'treasure' an undeniably racist candy.

I'm referring, of course, to the Eskimo - a coloured and flavoured marshmellow bundle of deliciousness moulded into the shape of how candy-makers in the 1800's thought 'native wot lived in da cold' should look like. Read about it here, then read NZ's epic culturalrelations fail response here. In summary - Recently, an Inuit tourist to New Zealand, Seeka La VeeVee Parsons, raised the issue that the word Eskimo was no longer appropriate to describe her people, and - (it means 'eaters of raw meat') - and was now considered an offensive term in Canada and Greenland. Secondly, the shape of the candy, as a small little man in a snow suit with slitty eyes was an offensive depiction of her culture. Fair enough, I thought - while I've grown up with Eskimos and I find them delicious and had never really considered whether or not they were offensive, in hindsight, they are. Eskimos are my generation's 'golliwogs' - something that collective ignorance meant we never realised was offensive at the time , but in hindsight we will cringe that we ever found it acceptable. I thought that we should be thanking Ms. Parsons before we embarrassed our selves as a country further, and undermined our proud record on indigenous rights.

But if you take the response of the mainstream morons that have offered their comment on this issue on such auguste forums as stuff.co.nz - and more sadly, the manufacturers of the lollies themselves (Pascalls), one would imagine that Ms. Parsons urinated on the NZ flag, declared Phar Lap to be 'an Australian nag' before hitting Bronagh Key in the face with a signed picture of the crew of Alinghi. Ms Parsons has been told by the internet to 'grow up or go home' while Pascalls insists their will be no change to the design or name - and trusts that the New Zealand public will continue to enjoy Eskimos. Sigh. A number of arguments are offered in defence of the Eskimo. All suck.

The first is that 'the majority of people don't find Eskimos offensive'. True....because most people are not Inuit. A 'majority of people' have at one time or another supported slavery, a ban on homosexuality, no votes for women....the fact that a certain group of people find it offensive, and offer good, solid evidence as to why it is offensive to them should be enough to satisfy us.

The second argument is 'But we have been selling them for 64 years - it's a traditional part of the New Zealand culture!'. True, but I fail to see how this is an argument in support of the Eskimo. Just because an offensive thing has been around for ages - it doesn't follow from that that thing suddenly gains legitimacy and respect because of it's age. Take a ban on homosexuality. This was the norm for thousands of years, but that didn't make it right. It's hard for a society to admit the fact that we've been fucking up, and doing it wrong - but this doesn't mean we should keep acting in a way that is wrong or offensive, simply because its the way we have always done it, when there are no good arguments for the continuation of that practice.

Thirdly, the idea that 'We didn't know it was offensive, so that makes it ok.' I used golliwoggs earlier as an example of something that used to be socially acceptable, but now its frankly embarassing to admit that our parents had one as a toy when they were kids. (although Mr. Golly was my favourite character on Noddy, so maybe I shouldn't be so quick to call the kettle, er,black.) The fact that we, as a society, have no been made aware that Eskimos are considered offensive should mean that whatever we thought in the past is irrelevant. I mean, if I told you a 'Your Mom' joke, and you told me your mom was dead - well, I'd feel awful and I would apologise for bringing it up, but I meant no harm. But if I laughed and told another 'Your Mom' joke (cos dey heapz funni lol), well...I'd be a jerk.

Finally, there are people that concede that they are offensive, but defend Eskimos on the ground that they are delicious, which apparently transcends the shape, name,etc. These arguments are the worst. Being delicious, has never, is not, and will never be a defence to bigotry. I admit they are tasty, but I would get that delicious taste even if they were shaped as indescribable blobs. You could mould in the shape of Helen Clark's breasts and the taste would still be the same. In fact, they would be even tastier, as no Inuit would have been harmed in the enjoyment of my candy.

I'm advocating a ban on all Pascalls products until the Eskimo is pulled from the shelves of all supermarkets. But knowing the sad readership of my blog, that just means that I won't be eating lollies for long, long, long time. But some things are worth taking a stand on. The whole Western world is littered with outdated and offensive relics from an ignorant past, that present a demeaning charicature of indigenous peoples. Eskimos are just one example. Chief Wahoo, the Cleveland Indians mascot is another. And theres countless others here. If I was really principled, and really concerned - then I'd also have a problem with a certain provincial rugby team (located in a province that rhymes with Wankerbury) which is named after a series of bloody acts of agression, justified on the basis of religious intolerance, that resulted in the deaths of over 2 million innocent civilians, many in the Muslim world. But fuck it, that's a battle for my children's generation to fight.

Alex

my next post will be on kittens and sandwiches. promise.

As Demanded: AWordOn Children, Cricket, and Bukkake

“They've seen me make decisions, they've seen me under trying times, they've seen me weep, they've seen me laugh, they've seen me hug. And they know who I am, and I believe they're comfortable with the fact that they know I'm not going to shift principles or shift positions based upon polls” (G. W. Bush)

When Alex created this poll for me I didn't know what to think, or expect. But I certainly didn't think I'd be expected to write about kids, a “sport”, and a sexual act all in one post. *sigh*. So what do Children, Cricket, and Bukkake all have in common? Education! (lol) But, seriously, that's how I'm gonna tie them together. First, though, let's be clear about what we're talking about.

Children: Pretty straight forward. We all used to be (and maybe still are) kids. Kids are stupid, unruly, and trouble. Really, I'm against spawning. But people, sometimes by choice and sometimes by whoops-I-slipped-and-stuck-my-penis-in-your-vagina (i.e. “accident”), do it.

Cricket: A game (ahem, sorry, a “sport”) played by silly people who demand on stopping the event for a tea break. Cricket games, I've surmised, can go on for a few minutes (e.g. backyard cricket) or, like, almost a week (e.g. test matches). I've also noticed that this game is a strange slower version of baseball. And the refs wear funny hats. And wave their hands in funny motions. Oh, and they chuck the ball in some sort of a bizarre overhead motion where you keep your elbow locked. That's about the gist of it.

Bukkake: See here. (WARNING: for adults only! Underage folks, the faint of heart, and those wishing to protect their virgin eyes... let's just say bukkake is a activity involving consenting adults, where a few religious/morally upstanding members of the community gives daisies and donuts to another member of the community (consensually).

The rearing of children is of paramount importance. Without a proper upbringing kids might grow up to be socialist, Maoists, or, dare I say, hippies. (Gasp!) Enter education. Kids have to be taught stuff. That's the role of parents as well as the community. The contributions that can be offered by people other than parents can be divided into 2 discussion: appropriate content; and appropriate methodology. Let's start with the latter.

Clearly, I'm not going to be able to cover all the bases here, but I am capable of saying this: interactions of the sporting variety are an excellent way for kids to learn essential socialization skills. Even when playing a ridiculous game like cricket. Other sports will better promote physical fitness, but that's not the only important thing; which is why cricket has a role. Ultimately, it doesn't matter what they do so long as it's a structured interactive environment through which they are able to learn how to work as a part of a team and interact with others. Unfortunately what kids get out of playing cricket (and the like) is achieved indirectly; that's unfortunate because those potential gains are often missed by shortsighted people. And you get things like this happening.

Now what about appropriate content? What should kids be taught? Well even though Alex will probably accuse me of being a conservative, I'm not sure kids (or anyone) should be taught about bukkake. I mean, come on. Bukkake, more than anything, is a byproduct of the pornography industry's need to come up with new and “exciting” things. This happens because a key attraction of pornography is its taboo allure. While this creates a tug-of-war with pornography's ambition for social acceptance, it also means pornography has to push the limits - what's old hat or commonplace fails to stay taboo. So what happens is the eroticisation of everything by pornography: some thing, or act, is presented as that which should arouse. Through this we get strange things like bukkake, armpit sex, and (the infamous) 2girls1cup. [Again, virgins and people who want to stay innocent, avert your eyes!] What's the educational value in that? Well, probably nothing. BUT, a vibrant pornography industry also gives us alternate approaches to sex education. Here I don't mean the teaching of STI awareness or how to properly use a condom. Here I mean how to be good in the sack. For instance, thanks to the porn industry, we can all learn how to give great manual pleasure. (bootleg it here!). Which is more useful in a hands on (pun!) kind of way than the tired and antiquated Karma Sutra. While the appropriate age at which a child should learn how to be a good lover is a separate issue, a culture that stifles the consumption of pornography is going to make it harder for people to learn how to please their partners effectively – something I think we can all appreciate.

So while I've managed to write the filthiest AwordOnFailure post ever, I've managed to cover that which I needed to for the schizophrenic poll. At the end of the day, all I'm trying to say is that the education of our kids is important if we want them to grow up and be proper. This involves an open mind: not only when it comes to the means by which they learn, but also what they learn. I could say more, but I think that’s enough for now. This is just my spur-of-the-moment thoughts on the subject. I could be wrong. After all, what do I know.

F*****D in the Middle: Why I hate 'Centrists'.

I realise that the people (all 6 of them) have spoken, and demanded I write a post on kittens (again? epic imaginationfail reader(s)) and sandwiches. The people will get what they have demanded, but not just yet - I'm going to wait until Paul has shredded his blogging credibility attempting to discuss children, cricket AND bukkake at the same time. So, in the meantime, here is a continuation of my normal, deeply unpopular style - writing blog posts of epic length, on topics no one cares about, and,overusing,the, comma,,. Treatfest.

In our recent widely-publicized, poorly-read April Fools acid attack on each other I accused Paul of being boring, and he accused me of being wildly inconsistent (as well as boring). It's a charge that sticks, as Paul pointed out, I've got no problem with hating on the 'consenting' prositute while supporting the 'consenting' incestual relationship. In some of my posts, I sound like a liberal, tree-hugging Pollyanna-esque socialist, while in others I come across as the lovechild of Sarah Palin and Augusto Pinochet. To me, this doesn't seem like a problem - the political left and political right are both full of flaws. Any good society needs both left-wing and right-wing views, the right to give it a budget, and the left to give it a conscience. While this may be a pathetic attempt to justify my own inconsistency , a combination of left and right wing views isn't a fail, its evidence of someone who has thought each issue through clearly, and come to an issue-by-issue decision of which 'side' has the better argument. Just whatever you do, don't call me a 'centrist'.

There are only two valid uses for the term 'political centrist'. It's used to describe people who are apathetic about politics generally, and also used to describe people who believe that politics shouldn't be about 'arguments' and 'idealogy', but by 'common sense' and the views of 'the ordinary bloke'. Unfortunately, these two groups make up the vast majority of the population in any modern Western liberal democracy. And while AWordOnFailure is not a blog that endorses dictatorships (yet), none of these people deserve the right to vote.

First, the 'apathetic' centrist or more appropriately, the 'apePathetic centrist'. These people are given the term 'centrist' by political analysts and the media by the sole virtue that they stubbornly refuse to have an opinion on anything political. EVER. Their usual response to the question 'Who will you vote for?' will be either 'it doeznt mattr 2 me hu wins, ay' or 'fkuc, politicz is 4 fagz' or 'i dunno, dnt hav time 2 fink abt it, lulz'. I spent a very depressing year working for a political survey company, and this would be the majority of responses I would hear. It baffles me how people can view politics - the process that apportions how much of your money you keep, the limits that are placed on your freedom to do what you want, and what kind of things are so essential you should get them for free - as something that has no relevance to their daily lives. Everyone should have a view on whether tax is good or not, shouldn't they? Or whether the government or YOU should pay for your tertiary education?

It makes me sad that these people have the same number of votes as I do, because if they are kind enough to drag themselves away from their middling,pointless lives once every three years to go vote - their votes are normally based on decisions as nuanced as 'im not voting 4 Helen Clark, shez a lesbo' or 'hahaha, Rodney Hide was on Dancing with the Stars, what a crakup eh?'.
These people undermine the very principles of a thinking democratic society, and yet (probably because there are so many of them) the media doesn't admonish the fact these people are muppets, and seek to educate them on policy - it caters to them in it's political coverage, declaring that these people represent the 'centre', and turning politics into something they can enjoy, like a fun race over which party is winning in the polls today.

But, as appalling as these people are, there is a worse kind of so-called centrist - the populist centrist. New Zealand has been cursed throughout history with many of these people oozing their way into top political jobs. Think of Prime Minister Piggy Muldoon, or everyone in the NZ First, (Asians Never) Party. In claiming they represent the centre, these people have a simple mantra, 'Politics is being ruined by high-falutin' Politically-Correct academics, and should focus on policies that are 'common sense', and supported by the 'ordinary bloke', not the 'elite''.

Politics isn't about common sense, its a contest between two competing sets of values. When you vote, it's often said you are voting for what is 'best' for the future of your country. You're not. You're voting for what you think the defintion of 'best' is. For politicians to claim that they are not acting in the interests of some wanky intelligentsia, but on the salt-of-the-earth, readily agreeable common-sense policies of 'the mainstream', is disingenous at best and dangerous for a healthy democracy at worst. One man's 'common sense', (say, I think it's 'common sense' that everyone should be provided with basic socio-economic rights) is another man's epicfail. What's more is that this depiction of 'common sense' is innately conservative, attempting to change some unsavoury aspect of society, such as the inability of gays to have access to the rights afforded by marriage is often seen as the opposite of common sense - 'political correctness gone mad! LULZ'.

There's a difference between being 'centrist' and being moderate. Being moderate means you normally agree with the principle and values embodied by one side of the political spectrum, but you are also convinced by some of the arguments/values held by the other side. Being centrist either means you have no idea how politics works, or you are convinced that their is no other side - opposition to your common sense views is the work of a bunch of out-of-touch academics, who are probably gay. The fact that it's an acceptable political position is disgraceful.

Alex

AGuestOnFailure: Pakistan - A Time For Celebration?

Today marks a monumental occasion in the often tragic history of A Word On Failure, with the first ever 'Special Guest Post!' Thanks go to Akif Malik, former opening batsman for the Hamilton Boys High 3rd XI, for preparing this eye-opening and insightful account of modern Pakistan and the immense challenges the nation faces. Of course, any one, any where at any time is welcome to submit a post (rant) to nelderanddaniels@gmail.com, we are heaps keen to get all sort of crazy topics, views and lulz on this blog. Plus, its better than reading Paul D rant about hippies....


Most Pakistanis will breathe a sigh of relief as news filters in that the government has reinstated the deposed Chief Justice. It comes in time for ordinary Pakistanis to put their inhibitions aside and partake in the traditional festival of basant that heralds the arrival of spring. The chronology of the crisis goes something like this, General Pervez Musharraf deposes the Chief Justice unconstitutionally before general elections in February 2008. His party is then roundly beaten in the elections by the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) and Pakistan Muslim League (PML) who form a national unity government to rule the country. General Musharraf resigns as president leaving the PPP leader Asif Ali Zardari to take over. The PPP then fails to live up to its election promises of restoring the judiciary. The PML pulls out of government and embarks on a “long march” for the restoration of the judiciary. All this culminated yesterday in the PPP lead government finally agreeing to restore the unconstitutionally removed Supreme Court judges. So where does this leave Pakistan?

Most people agree that this is a step in the right direction; it paves the way for Pakistan’s two major political parties to work together. It also ends the bitter rivalry between the PML and PPP that was threatening to destabilise the recently elected government. One hopes that this moment marks an increase in maturity from both main political parties. In recent weeks the government was under pressure not just from the opposition but also from within its own cabinet. Sherry Rehman, herself a PPP minister resigned in protest at the government’s actions. The Chief of Army Staff General Kiyani also assured the public that the military would respect the democratic institutions in the country. All this augurs well for a reinvigorated democracy. It allows an opportunity for democracy to work. But before getting all pumped up and happy one should note that critical challenges remain.

Pakistanis have long looked at political parties and personalities with disdain. They think of democracy as a co-opt of the elite. An elite that plays a game of musical chairs in parliament, shockingly unaware of the injustice, inequity and hopelessness that infuriates the masses. The real test for both the judiciary and the political parties begins now. As one Pakistani journalist puts it “The reality is that neither man can tolerate an independent judiciary, as to do so would be quite contrary to their respective political natures.” This captures the real sentiments of the public. While they are keen for the restoration of the judiciary, they feel that neither Nawaz Sharif nor Zardari will allow the judiciary freedom to exercise its mandate. They find it hard to forget the attack by PML activists on the Supreme Court when Nawaz Sharif was in power in 1997, nor can they ignore Mr Sharif’s wish to imprison the then Chief Justice this puts Mr Sharif’s principled and moral stand under intense scrutiny. Similarly, the public remember Mr Zardari’s on the record statement offering a Supreme Court justice the office of chief justice of Pakistan providing he handed over an undated letter of resignation.

The problems don’t end with Pakistan though. If one casts an eye over the recent past to find the seeds of the conflict between the Musharraf government and the judiciary it becomes clear that the conflict emerged when the supreme court took an investigative interest in the missing persons cases. Since the War on Terror was initiated in 2001, Pakistan has been at the forefront of one of the bloodiest conflicts in the 21st century. Pakistan has lost more military personnel, police officials and civilians than any other country fighting in the war against terrorism. But pressure from the US government to “do more” has been relentless. This has led to the government embarking on scores of extra-judicial security measures. Measures that give security agencies such as the police, rangers and intelligence powers to imprison and detain people indefinitely. These measures have been highly unpopular, and its no surprise that they have been brought in question before the courts. The Supreme Court has questioned such government tactics and has instructed the government to produce a list of all detainees held without charges. This in turn creates tensions between the Supreme Court and the government, which is trying hard to win favours in the White House. It will be interesting to see if the reinstated chief justice continues proceedings in such missing persons cases.

It is natural for those in New Zealnd and the rest of the world to wonder why this is at all relevant to us. The Supreme Court and the reinstated judges have won the hearts and minds of the people. They’ve been commended for beginning the movement that liberated Pakistan from years of military rule under the military regime of Pervez Musharraf. These missing persons cases will allow the judiciary to re-establish itself as a check on the government. This is critical. In a political landscape where there are few strong and neutral institutions the re-emergence of the Supreme Court must be welcomed. For most of its existence the only stable institution in Pakistan has been the army. A reinvigorated supreme court will increase faith in the institutions of the state.

The judiciary also provides a bulwark against extremism. The militant extremists gain most of their support from the disdain felt towards a failing government. They have no real positive agenda for change. The only real attraction some Pakistanis find in the Taliban is their promise of efficient justice. Most commentators will look at any such promise from the militant islamists with suspicion. But for the millions of Pakistanis living in a state of constant fear and injustice, it’s a welcome relief. While they do not agree with most of the Taliban ideology, they are happy to ignore that. They ignore that as they can see the Taliban bringing some semblance of order and security to their society. It seems ironic even stupid to think so now, but don’t forget the decrease in poppy cultivation and crime when the Taliban were in charge in Afghanistan Also, factor in the contempt these people feel towards an elitist regime that has not only ignored their needs but periodically violated their most basic rights. Most Pakistanis feel that the government is a co-opt of the elite that acts positively to violate individual rights, in order to pander to western wishes.

Pakistan is easily the frontline on the war on terror. Its societal fabric has been burnt not just by suicide bombs but also through targeted drone strikes. Most if not all Pakistanis, have personally suffered as a direct result of the war on terror. In this environment, it should be politically palatable for a government to go after the Islamic militants. But it isn’t. It isn’t so because the war on terror is largely seen as a western effort that ignores the aspirations and values of the local population in Pakistan. While it would be grand to argue that a liberated supreme court can change this tide of public opinion, its is certainly plausible to suggest that an invigorated bench would help craft a Pakistani response to the war on terror. It provides recourse for relief. If the Supreme Court is successful at investigating the “missing persons cases” (people picked up by the ISI and CIA without any charges and held without convictions at unknown locations) it will provide a landmark. As it would signal that the court is an effective check on executive power. It would also open the possibility of putting questions before the court about the Pakistani intelligence activities, with regards to political manipulation with local elections and its involvement in the war on terror. All this would make ordinary Pakistanis realise that the war against militancy is not just an idle conflict fought to attract billions of dollars in US aid. But also a solution to Pakistan’s own problems.It would also help in changing the practices and perceptions of a corrupt government violating its citizen’s rights to pander to a western audience.

So, as the crowds gather in Lahore and the colourful kites fill the skies. It is indeed time for celebration; the restoration of the judges offers a rare silver lining. It provides, both the Pakistani government and the judiciary to win the hearts of its own people. But it also throws the challenge to the US and other foreign allies to work with the Pakistani people and not just blackmail the government into action. If the court shows a willingness to hold the government accountable and if the government proceeds to keep to the road of legality then peoples’ faith in the arms of government can be restored. And that is good, not just for Pakistan but also for a region that is starved of stable institutions. It is also critical in ensuring that providing a stable, honest and effective administration undermines the explicit and implicit support for militant extremists.

Akif Malik

April Fools?

So it turns out that, while both of us are bitter blokes broken by society, we've got fundamentally different outlooks. What this means is that even though we'll sometimes be on the same page on an issue, most of the time we each think "wot wrong wit u foo?"

So what you get here is an explanation from each of us... we're each going to offer some deep critical insight (read: gross character assassination) into what's wrong with the others' perspective. It should be noted we intended this post to come out on the first day of the month, but in time honoured AWordOnFailure fashion, it didn't.

Enjoy.
Lol Always,
Paul & Alex

---

What's Wrong with Paul D?

'After all, what do I know? (Paul Daniels, AWordOnFailure)'

When I began blogging with Paul many months ago little did I know that I would be entering into an unholy alliance with the bastard lovechild of Niccolo Machiavelli and The Grinch. The ' twenty-something Canadian surfer-philosopher' exterior masks the true Paul D - a man with the stress levels of a 65-year old Air Traffic Controller and the twisted mind of Gollum. Paul D refers to himself as 'jaded'; but in reality when God was handing out compassion, Paul D was sitting in the corner, pulling the wings off butterflies and stealing candy bars from babies with spina bifida. Whats worse is that his contempt for humanity seems to grow at the same astonishing speed that his batting average plummets.

Paul D's blogposts are a reflection of a tortured, soulless misanthrope, and suffer from two fundamental flaws. The first is a solid, unthinking belief in the infallibility of his own ideas and the second is a bizzarre, unprincipled hatred for any one with a different idea to him. At various points throughout Paul D's rocky and wholly unsuccessful blogging career he has declared that Pop Music sucks because Paul D says it sucks, and that anyone who does not agree with him is an idealist who should kill themselves. In one particulary enlightening tantrum, Paul D declared that blogging was stupid, despite the fact that he was writing on....err, a blog.

Another thing. While Paul D's long-suffering co-blogger attempts to answer important questions such as ' How will history judge George W. Bush?' or 'Does Japan have a right to hunt whales?' and often answers them with wit, wisdom and lols - Paul D deems fit to fill the blog with questions such as 'When is it OK to leave Orange Juice in the Sun?' and 'What's the definition of Porn Star?' There are two kinds of Paul D posts. The first is 'Angry Ranting Paul', where Paul takes on something wholly innocous (such as sitting next to a poor person on a bus) and decides that it is the worse thing since the Holocaust. In these posts, Paul D often tries to channel the spirit of PJ O'Rourke, but often channels the spirit of Grandpa Simpson; and often sounds like the patron saint of upper-middle class elitist twats. The second is 'Wise and Reasonable Paul', where he attempts to be an impartial social observer and make a definitive pronouncement on some middling aspect of social relations (often subjecting Jimmy and Jenny to a bunch of mundane household chores in the process). Often, Paul D takes a lot of words to say what everyone already knew - classics include his pronouncement that 'talking about boring things is boring', and that 'you should tell your partner if you have an STD'.

In conclusion, 1) Paul D's posts are often short because he has nothing interesting to say, 2) Paul D is sometimes wrong and 3) it is a well known fact that Paul D chucks, not bowls, the ball in a game of backyard cricket. I could say more, but I think that's enough for now. After all, wouldn't want people to think I actually have an opinion. These are things I have thought through, but will give the impression that I made it up on the spot. After all, I know more than you, so shut up.


---

What's Wrong with Alex?



For a few reasons, hippies are the scourge of the earth. One of which is that the typical hippy is an idealist. Now I'm not gonna stand here and suggest Alex is a hippy; he may be a lot of things (read: womanizer), but he has repeatedly told me that "free is another word for socialism." Because being a socialist is another hallmark of our typical hippy I think we can safely infer that Alex is not one... despite his other hippy qualities (e.g. intentionally keeping his living space the opposite of clean). But Alex is, at the very least, an idealist. You might have missed this, since the only interesting things about his posts are the titles, but if you take the time (read: days) to check out his posts you'd come to know the Alex that I do. TREATFEST!

In the long (read: short) tradition of AWordOnFailure, Alex has consistently written concise (read: convoluted) posts about everything from why it's okay for him to slept with his own MILF to why it's NOT okay for him to sleep with his teacher-who-is-also-a-prostitute. But inconsistency aside, when Alex isn't preaching who you should and shouldn't be allowed to have sex with, Alex likes to tackle the “important” issues we face (read: make kingly proclamations about what people should do, while not doing anything about it himself). We see this when he says we shouldn't let staving kids starve and why kiwi's aren't good enough at being kiwis. But this is the plight of idealists: shooting for the stars, then when it comes time to buck up, making for the exit. Why are idealists like this? Well, cuz deep down inside they know that if the world was as perfect that they want it to be, it just wouldn't work. And Alex knows this: he's repeatedly told me “the world would be an awful place if everyone were happy” and written about why he's against jokes. WORST CHRISTMAS EVER!

But hold the phone: not all idealists are like this – some of 'em actually take steps to actualize the changes they advocate. They make sacrifices in their lifestyles so that the underprivileged they support can have it a little better; they protest the public policy decisions they believe are wrong. So I guess it's just Alex who, instead of spending his energy fighting those who try to discriminate on the basis of membership of a group and dress code Alex goes on holidays to the sex tourism capital of Thailand (gah!). And instead of helping ensure the death penalty has no home in NZ, he hides away alone at the top of his ivory tower indulging in his own mundane interests that involve no one else. ROFLCOPTER!

I guess it's easy enough to excuse Alex for these crimes. His inability to put a coherent sentence together when speaking (thanks to cleft palate) probably relates to his inability to formulating a coherent written sentence (thanks to being raised in a barn and molested as a child). So he's doing the best he can (i.e. being a law student who is physically unable, thanks to his club foot, to make it to class on time). But, at the end of the day, Alex is just confused by his own inconsistency. After all, it's hard to know what he really thinks when he write posts denouncing some political leaders while defending W. bush AND “So-Dame Insane” (as Alex colloquially refers to the late leader of Iraq). LULZ!!1!