And Now, The Charter of Demands—The Comedy Continues!
Ahmed Quraishi December 4, 2007
#81 Posted by Urstruly on December 6, 2007 9:10:07 am
Re: # 80
This is the worst of the solutions and it will legitimize an illegal occupation of country by napak fouj the second time. This will finally seal our fate with a Husni Mubarak an egypt style dictatorship. Look, Michivilli advised those to go all the way if they decide to rise up against the prince, any half-assed effort would mean that prince would strike back with full force and fury. Soowar moulvi like fazla has no point. He is only trying his best to preserve this schizofrenic status quo which has ailed us for the past 60 years. God only gives a chance to a nation only once and that is it. Any election without an independent election commission, without the supervision ofa judiciary as it was on November 9 would be treason and unforgivable by our generations to come.
This is the worst of the solutions and it will legitimize an illegal occupation of country by napak fouj the second time. This will finally seal our fate with a Husni Mubarak an egypt style dictatorship. Look, Michivilli advised those to go all the way if they decide to rise up against the prince, any half-assed effort would mean that prince would strike back with full force and fury. Soowar moulvi like fazla has no point. He is only trying his best to preserve this schizofrenic status quo which has ailed us for the past 60 years. God only gives a chance to a nation only once and that is it. Any election without an independent election commission, without the supervision ofa judiciary as it was on November 9 would be treason and unforgivable by our generations to come.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#82 Posted by SR on December 6, 2007 10:39:22 am
Re: # 51 T. Ahmed ["... an independant judiciary.
The current crisis, ... has already done .. good ... the importance of an independant judiciary..."]
Exactly my sentiments also ... BUT ... (there is always a but ...) we are guilty of a bit of idealism here. Nothing wrong with idealism, I've been mostly an idealist much of my life, as I am sure, have you. But (and this is the but referred to above) reality is often uglier than ideals.
The presence of an "independent judiciary" is much more a myth than a reality at any time anywhere throughout pre-WW history. Until the post-WW2 era there have been incidents of independent judges here and there who have challanged the vital interests of the political establishment and yet lived to tell the tale. For example, Muslim Spain had a reputation of having mostly honest and independent judges. Sir Thomas Moore's story has been well dramatised by Shakespeare, and that is another example of an honest and independent law man. There are other examples, but one has to look for them. The norm, however, is Justice Doggar, not Iftikhar Chaudhry or Bhagwandas.
This is a Jeffersonian concept. The "independent" judiciary.
In the presidential form of constitutional government there are three co-equal branches of government. That is the so-called balance of power. Both the legislature and the executive are elected independently. Judiciary is independent once the two other branches picks the judges in co-operation with one another.
In the parliamentary form, on the other hand, the three branches are not co-equal... Sovreignity (since the 1600s)is vested with the parliament. Even in English constitutional tradition, for four hundred years now, the Sovreign, who used to be The King by grace of God and by divine right, is "King-in-Parliament" ... The executive as well as the judiciary are born of the parliament.
In the Soviet system it was The Party that was sovreign. In Iran it is the council of ayatullahs in Qum that has the ultimate veto.
We can not be too unrealistic on this abstract question of an idenpendent judiciary. The ultimate law is always the law of might. The difference usually is only in the clothes you put on it: whether it is concentrated kind of "naked might" or whether it's diluted down and dressed up in some expensive garb.
Munharraf is not so inventive that you can credit him with doing something unique or original to the judiciary just so he could protect his personal political interest. This is an old trick with a long history. Let's take a not-so-random example.
The Third president of the United States, Thomas Jefferson, who was himself (yani K, baqallum-khud) the author of the Bill of Rights, was the first one in the US history to manipulate the Supreme Court to suit his personal political ends. He moved the Supreme Court to Richmond, Virginia, for the treason trial of his archrival, Aaron Burr. This move of the trial venue was supposed to change the courts composition because some judges could not have made the journey from Washington, or so the thinking went. Jefferson had already suspended the habeus corpus petition from the recently passed Bill of Rights after having ordered the army, as its commander-in-chief, to arrest Aaron Burr as an "enemy of the state."
How has Munharraf done any different? (Well, okay, the degree to which he went was a bit extreme.)
If I can accept the Great Jefferson, or Massa Tom as his slaves would call him, to be a real democrat at heart, why can't my grandchildren some day look back at Munharraf and call him the architect of Pakistan's democracy?
After all, it was almost exactly eight centuries ago that
an embattled and exhausted King John, who was beseiged by a combative nobility, signed the Magna Catra with a reluctant pen. The river of history cuts through unexpected channels.
It seems almost inevitable that the naPak Rupee will devalue faster than most fiat currencies, even faster than the swooning US Dollar. The naPak government is going broke subsidising the price of petroleum. It is still Rs. 53 per liter while crude oil has doubled in price. The negative balance of payments has expanded from a well under US$ 2 Billion to over ten times that in four short years. This is simply an unsustainable position.
Munharraf, the rumor goes, is all set to resign and leave for Turkey by end January at the earliest (August - latest), that is, if election results are not to his liking -- which I suspect they will not be. The house he'd once bought in an Istanbul bedroom community is being refurbrished. He's decided NOT to move to the presidential palace and shall remain in the Army House, presumably as Kiyani's guest. This seems a highly unlikely decision by someone who is just beginning a five year long presidential term. Unless, of course, he is planning an early exit.
He seems to be a sour loser and is doing what Emperor Tiberius did to Rome as his parting gift. Tiberius left the throne to the insane Caligula on the theory that things will get so bad after him that people will forget the Reign of Terror under him. He believed that Romans will look back and sing his praises with nostalgia. Tiberius blamed it all on Sajanus, his prefect. Munharraf might blame it on Shortcut Aziz, or maybe, Tariq Aziz. You've got to give it to Pervaiz Munharraf, he's got a bigger ego than a drunkard juvinile. It almost matches that of the legendry Zulfi Bhutto.
The petroleum subsidy will HAVE TO BE LIFTED by the next government, and that will result in an economic shock. The inflationary damn that will burst next year will make Pakistanis scream bloody murder and whoever is in government will get the blame.
American pressure, the rumour continues, is on the establishment to get BB the vote, but Munharraf, who has finally fallen out with America deep inside (Negroponte supposed encouraged Kiyani to take over), has played a trick. Unlike the previous election, the presiding officer at each and every polling station will certify the official count (which is held in the presence of the candidates' representatives) and make it public before sending it on to the election commission. If this order is carried out properly, this will turn out to be an election in which it shall become most difficult to alter the vote count and change results during the middle of the night like it was done in the 2002 elections.
It is ironic that Yahya Khan, the drunkard womanizer, held an honest election and led to the breakup of the country. Similarly, Munharraf the drunkard womanizer, will hold the second most honest poll count that could result in the further destruction of the country. Both generals share even more in common. They each being stubbornly self-righteous and blind to the ground reality of the country, yet power hungry to the point of voilating all known legal and constitutional princples and ethics. Both caused unimaginable harm to the state in their wrong-headedness. Both made uncountable enemies, but none of their enemies ever accused them of any major financial corruption. This is more than can be said of Ayub, Bhutto, Zia, BB, Nawaz Sharif and even creapers and crawlers like Kazi, Fazlu or the Pir of London.
...SR
The current crisis, ... has already done .. good ... the importance of an independant judiciary..."]
Exactly my sentiments also ... BUT ... (there is always a but ...) we are guilty of a bit of idealism here. Nothing wrong with idealism, I've been mostly an idealist much of my life, as I am sure, have you. But (and this is the but referred to above) reality is often uglier than ideals.
The presence of an "independent judiciary" is much more a myth than a reality at any time anywhere throughout pre-WW history. Until the post-WW2 era there have been incidents of independent judges here and there who have challanged the vital interests of the political establishment and yet lived to tell the tale. For example, Muslim Spain had a reputation of having mostly honest and independent judges. Sir Thomas Moore's story has been well dramatised by Shakespeare, and that is another example of an honest and independent law man. There are other examples, but one has to look for them. The norm, however, is Justice Doggar, not Iftikhar Chaudhry or Bhagwandas.
This is a Jeffersonian concept. The "independent" judiciary.
In the presidential form of constitutional government there are three co-equal branches of government. That is the so-called balance of power. Both the legislature and the executive are elected independently. Judiciary is independent once the two other branches picks the judges in co-operation with one another.
In the parliamentary form, on the other hand, the three branches are not co-equal... Sovreignity (since the 1600s)is vested with the parliament. Even in English constitutional tradition, for four hundred years now, the Sovreign, who used to be The King by grace of God and by divine right, is "King-in-Parliament" ... The executive as well as the judiciary are born of the parliament.
In the Soviet system it was The Party that was sovreign. In Iran it is the council of ayatullahs in Qum that has the ultimate veto.
We can not be too unrealistic on this abstract question of an idenpendent judiciary. The ultimate law is always the law of might. The difference usually is only in the clothes you put on it: whether it is concentrated kind of "naked might" or whether it's diluted down and dressed up in some expensive garb.
Munharraf is not so inventive that you can credit him with doing something unique or original to the judiciary just so he could protect his personal political interest. This is an old trick with a long history. Let's take a not-so-random example.
The Third president of the United States, Thomas Jefferson, who was himself (yani K, baqallum-khud) the author of the Bill of Rights, was the first one in the US history to manipulate the Supreme Court to suit his personal political ends. He moved the Supreme Court to Richmond, Virginia, for the treason trial of his archrival, Aaron Burr. This move of the trial venue was supposed to change the courts composition because some judges could not have made the journey from Washington, or so the thinking went. Jefferson had already suspended the habeus corpus petition from the recently passed Bill of Rights after having ordered the army, as its commander-in-chief, to arrest Aaron Burr as an "enemy of the state."
How has Munharraf done any different? (Well, okay, the degree to which he went was a bit extreme.)
If I can accept the Great Jefferson, or Massa Tom as his slaves would call him, to be a real democrat at heart, why can't my grandchildren some day look back at Munharraf and call him the architect of Pakistan's democracy?
After all, it was almost exactly eight centuries ago that
an embattled and exhausted King John, who was beseiged by a combative nobility, signed the Magna Catra with a reluctant pen. The river of history cuts through unexpected channels.
It seems almost inevitable that the naPak Rupee will devalue faster than most fiat currencies, even faster than the swooning US Dollar. The naPak government is going broke subsidising the price of petroleum. It is still Rs. 53 per liter while crude oil has doubled in price. The negative balance of payments has expanded from a well under US$ 2 Billion to over ten times that in four short years. This is simply an unsustainable position.
Munharraf, the rumor goes, is all set to resign and leave for Turkey by end January at the earliest (August - latest), that is, if election results are not to his liking -- which I suspect they will not be. The house he'd once bought in an Istanbul bedroom community is being refurbrished. He's decided NOT to move to the presidential palace and shall remain in the Army House, presumably as Kiyani's guest. This seems a highly unlikely decision by someone who is just beginning a five year long presidential term. Unless, of course, he is planning an early exit.
He seems to be a sour loser and is doing what Emperor Tiberius did to Rome as his parting gift. Tiberius left the throne to the insane Caligula on the theory that things will get so bad after him that people will forget the Reign of Terror under him. He believed that Romans will look back and sing his praises with nostalgia. Tiberius blamed it all on Sajanus, his prefect. Munharraf might blame it on Shortcut Aziz, or maybe, Tariq Aziz. You've got to give it to Pervaiz Munharraf, he's got a bigger ego than a drunkard juvinile. It almost matches that of the legendry Zulfi Bhutto.
The petroleum subsidy will HAVE TO BE LIFTED by the next government, and that will result in an economic shock. The inflationary damn that will burst next year will make Pakistanis scream bloody murder and whoever is in government will get the blame.
American pressure, the rumour continues, is on the establishment to get BB the vote, but Munharraf, who has finally fallen out with America deep inside (Negroponte supposed encouraged Kiyani to take over), has played a trick. Unlike the previous election, the presiding officer at each and every polling station will certify the official count (which is held in the presence of the candidates' representatives) and make it public before sending it on to the election commission. If this order is carried out properly, this will turn out to be an election in which it shall become most difficult to alter the vote count and change results during the middle of the night like it was done in the 2002 elections.
It is ironic that Yahya Khan, the drunkard womanizer, held an honest election and led to the breakup of the country. Similarly, Munharraf the drunkard womanizer, will hold the second most honest poll count that could result in the further destruction of the country. Both generals share even more in common. They each being stubbornly self-righteous and blind to the ground reality of the country, yet power hungry to the point of voilating all known legal and constitutional princples and ethics. Both caused unimaginable harm to the state in their wrong-headedness. Both made uncountable enemies, but none of their enemies ever accused them of any major financial corruption. This is more than can be said of Ayub, Bhutto, Zia, BB, Nawaz Sharif and even creapers and crawlers like Kazi, Fazlu or the Pir of London.
...SR
#83 Posted by arjun8 on December 6, 2007 11:09:12 am
#82 Posted by SR on December 6, 2007 10:39:22 am
The Third president of the United States, Thomas Jefferson, who was himself (yani K, baqallum-khud) the author of the Bill of Rights,
where do you pakis get your history from?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights
TJ wrote the declaration of independence.
seriously... where do you pull this stuff out of? the nuggets section of the friday times?
The Third president of the United States, Thomas Jefferson, who was himself (yani K, baqallum-khud) the author of the Bill of Rights,
where do you pakis get your history from?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights
TJ wrote the declaration of independence.
seriously... where do you pull this stuff out of? the nuggets section of the friday times?
#84 Posted by econfused on December 6, 2007 11:31:37 am
Re: #83,
You have to give credit to #82 SR, that he at least tried to made Mush hero. HE also made an effort that he is blaming Mush, but also making him hero, who will make sure that elections are not rigged. I bet he never been to a polling station. He is forgetting about Nazims and Naib-Nazims at grass root level (as Mush puts it) and what they can and will do.
No matter what anybody portrays and no matter if IK is the only person not going for polls. This election will legitimize everything and try to kill the movement which started on 9th of March.
Last but not the least, don't compare Pakistan judiciary with US.
You have to give credit to #82 SR, that he at least tried to made Mush hero. HE also made an effort that he is blaming Mush, but also making him hero, who will make sure that elections are not rigged. I bet he never been to a polling station. He is forgetting about Nazims and Naib-Nazims at grass root level (as Mush puts it) and what they can and will do.
No matter what anybody portrays and no matter if IK is the only person not going for polls. This election will legitimize everything and try to kill the movement which started on 9th of March.
Last but not the least, don't compare Pakistan judiciary with US.
#85 Posted by SR on December 6, 2007 11:43:09 am
Re: # 83 8unjra [ "...TJ wrote the declaration of independence..." ]
Thanks for the factual error correction. The point was rhetorical, however, and doesn't alter the main thought.
Thanks for the factual error correction. The point was rhetorical, however, and doesn't alter the main thought.
#86 Posted by tahmed32 on December 6, 2007 12:36:15 pm
SR: Musharraf pushed his way to power through the barrel of a gun, and seeks to cling to power for as long as he can by weakening virtually every pillar of nationhood (rule of law, freedom of the press, human rights). Jefferson was an elected President, and during his stay did the opposite.
The above alone should be enough to show how it is totally meaningless to compare Mush to Jefferson - or indeed to any elected leader of any democratic nation!!
The above alone should be enough to show how it is totally meaningless to compare Mush to Jefferson - or indeed to any elected leader of any democratic nation!!
#87 Posted by teshah on December 6, 2007 5:56:59 pm
Re: # 81
But the problem is, we have no country, no nation, in real sense, but only army and the mullah, aka, 'PCO+Fatwa', to keep the fraud system intact.
But the problem is, we have no country, no nation, in real sense, but only army and the mullah, aka, 'PCO+Fatwa', to keep the fraud system intact.
#88 Posted by SR on December 6, 2007 7:08:18 pm
Re: # 86 [ "...Musharraf pushed his way to power through the barrel of a gun, ... Jefferson was an elected President..." ]
You are right, of course. And no one in his right mind will put Munharraf anywhere near the same league as Massa Tom. Having agreed as much, however, consider the ironic parallels. (I realise that the similarity is superficial, not fundamental.)
The barrel of a gun...
Next time a Martian comes to Earth and asks why it was more noble for the Washingtons, the Adams, the Jeffersons and the Madisons to have "earned" their political ascent through the barrel of a gun by removing the chamchas of a distant King Emperor George, it will take a long winded explaination to show him the subtlties of differences between the various kinds (good vs. bad) use of the gun.
"Elected" president...
The Devil might also come down to cloud the issue and remind our Martian that Massa Tom was "elected" by a parliament (Congress) and not by the people directly.
"But," our enlightened Martian might argue back, "the Congress was directly voted in by the people."
To this the Devil would say that the Congress which elected Jefferson (by ONE vote on the third round of ballot, after being in a tie twice) was itself only picked by white men, who owned landed property. Women and the unwashed masses, even the educated ones, didn't have any say in the matter.
Munharraf the Devil might argue, was also "elected" by a parliament that conceivably not very different in its "true representation" of the masses as was the Congress of 1800.
...SR
You are right, of course. And no one in his right mind will put Munharraf anywhere near the same league as Massa Tom. Having agreed as much, however, consider the ironic parallels. (I realise that the similarity is superficial, not fundamental.)
The barrel of a gun...
Next time a Martian comes to Earth and asks why it was more noble for the Washingtons, the Adams, the Jeffersons and the Madisons to have "earned" their political ascent through the barrel of a gun by removing the chamchas of a distant King Emperor George, it will take a long winded explaination to show him the subtlties of differences between the various kinds (good vs. bad) use of the gun.
"Elected" president...
The Devil might also come down to cloud the issue and remind our Martian that Massa Tom was "elected" by a parliament (Congress) and not by the people directly.
"But," our enlightened Martian might argue back, "the Congress was directly voted in by the people."
To this the Devil would say that the Congress which elected Jefferson (by ONE vote on the third round of ballot, after being in a tie twice) was itself only picked by white men, who owned landed property. Women and the unwashed masses, even the educated ones, didn't have any say in the matter.
Munharraf the Devil might argue, was also "elected" by a parliament that conceivably not very different in its "true representation" of the masses as was the Congress of 1800.
...SR
#89 Posted by Urstruly on December 6, 2007 7:18:48 pm
Re: # 88
At least none of the Washingtons, the Adams, the Jeffersons and the Madisons killed 2000 school children in a day - perhaps it would be a convincing argument for a martian but it apparently it is not for some pakistanis.
At least none of the Washingtons, the Adams, the Jeffersons and the Madisons killed 2000 school children in a day - perhaps it would be a convincing argument for a martian but it apparently it is not for some pakistanis.
#90 Posted by tahmed32 on December 6, 2007 7:53:07 pm
SR: I think Urstruly has blown your point straight out of the water.
Please dont try to strengthen weak arguments by dressing them up in the uniform of your world-famous wit. That trick only works for so long, as Mr. Musharraf has learnt to his dismay. :-)
Please dont try to strengthen weak arguments by dressing them up in the uniform of your world-famous wit. That trick only works for so long, as Mr. Musharraf has learnt to his dismay. :-)
#91 Posted by krashid1961 on December 7, 2007 12:12:47 am
#81 Urstruly:
5th time.
Ayub khan
Yahya Khan
Zia-ul-Haq
Musharraf
and 5th time
5th time.
Ayub khan
Yahya Khan
Zia-ul-Haq
Musharraf
and 5th time
#92 Posted by bulleya on December 7, 2007 11:59:26 am
...interesting events....
1. shaukut aziz does not participate in elections...he is musharraf's main man....musharraf could, easily, have gotten him a ticket....why isn't he going into elections....
rumor has it that he maybe the next ceo of citibank..i am in abu dhabi these days, and the abu dhabi govt. (the richest govt. in the world, per capita) has just bought 6% of citibank, which lost half (?) its market cap, due to the mortgage crisis....prince walid - the guy who fired the recent citi ceo (prince fires prince) - owns another roughly 4%.....
...apparently, shaukut aziz and an indian guy are the top two candidates.....so quitting the prime minister to become the ceo of the largest bank in the world....not bad!!
2. musharraf is not moving out of his army house, into the presidency.....why?....military generals are always more loyal to the military than they are to pakistan...this is a fact.....hence, they rarely, if ever, break military traditions (while they regularly break pakistani traditions).....hence musharraf not moving out is a major break of military traditions......a civilian never lives in a military house......specially the coas house.......
so what is going on?
3. nawaz sharif has decided not to compete in the elections......i assume he will hand over the leadership to his brother....if so, then it is not a move of morality, put a political maneouvre......in any case, big move......
4. saudi ambassador met the chief justice?........why?...the voice of the govt. - the daily times (whose owner is in musharraf's interim govt.) - is saying that the supreme court may be restored, but without the cj as the cj.........
interesting times......
if ppp and pml(n) can agree to some sort of charter for the coming elections, musharraf is through.......totally through.....if he can keep them apart, he may have a life......
1. shaukut aziz does not participate in elections...he is musharraf's main man....musharraf could, easily, have gotten him a ticket....why isn't he going into elections....
rumor has it that he maybe the next ceo of citibank..i am in abu dhabi these days, and the abu dhabi govt. (the richest govt. in the world, per capita) has just bought 6% of citibank, which lost half (?) its market cap, due to the mortgage crisis....prince walid - the guy who fired the recent citi ceo (prince fires prince) - owns another roughly 4%.....
...apparently, shaukut aziz and an indian guy are the top two candidates.....so quitting the prime minister to become the ceo of the largest bank in the world....not bad!!
2. musharraf is not moving out of his army house, into the presidency.....why?....military generals are always more loyal to the military than they are to pakistan...this is a fact.....hence, they rarely, if ever, break military traditions (while they regularly break pakistani traditions).....hence musharraf not moving out is a major break of military traditions......a civilian never lives in a military house......specially the coas house.......
so what is going on?
3. nawaz sharif has decided not to compete in the elections......i assume he will hand over the leadership to his brother....if so, then it is not a move of morality, put a political maneouvre......in any case, big move......
4. saudi ambassador met the chief justice?........why?...the voice of the govt. - the daily times (whose owner is in musharraf's interim govt.) - is saying that the supreme court may be restored, but without the cj as the cj.........
interesting times......
if ppp and pml(n) can agree to some sort of charter for the coming elections, musharraf is through.......totally through.....if he can keep them apart, he may have a life......
#93 Posted by SR on December 7, 2007 1:47:48 pm
Re: # 92 [ "...abu dhabi govt... bought 6% of citibank, which lost half (?) its market cap, due to the mortgage crisis....prince walid - the guy who fired the recent citi ceo - owns another roughly 4%..." ]
These Arabs may think of themselves as astute, but they are the patsies in this deal. As for Shaukat Aziz, it will soon be very clear who does he really pimp for? The Arabs or the bankers.
Abu Dhabi Investment Authority bought US$ 7.5 Billion worth of shares in Citigroup. This is, of course, a paltry amount of money to "invest" in the biggest - and one of the most shaky - of the US money center banks. That didn't stop the Dow making up almost all the ground it had lost on the previous day and the US Dollar rebounding.
Several aspects of this deal were not mentioned in the financial headlines which led to the abrupt US market turnaround. One was the fact - as reported by the state-run "WAM" news agency in Abu Dhabi - that on the previous day, Citigroup interim Chairman (and ex US Treasury Secretary) Robert Rubin had met with Abu Dhabi officials to discuss: "world stock markets and their impact on the performance of banks." Second, the government-controlled Abu Dhabi "sovereign wealth fund" had actually bought US$ 7.5 Billion of convertible shares. Another was Mr Rubin's pledge, given after taking over from Charles Prince who recently "resigned" as Citigroup's CEO, that the bank would preserve the dividend and weather THIS YEAR'S mortgage market decline.
What Abu Dhabi has bought is US$ 7.5 Billion worth of convertible shares which can be swapped for as many as 235.6 million ordinary shares at prices ranging from $31.83 and $37.27 between March 15, 2010 and September 15, 2011. In the meantime, these convertible shares pay an interest rate of ELEVEN PERCENT, almost double the rate Citigroup offers its bond buyers. This is a junk bond yield.
For its 11 percent, Citigroup gets an amount of "liquidity" which will just cover the reported US$ 7 Billion write-off in mortgage related securities it took in the third quarter. Alternatively, it would allow Mr Rubin to avoid cutting the present dividend paid by Citicorp - for less than nine months.
It appears from this deal that everybody is hoping to dupe everyone else. And yes, Shortcut Aziz may be able to pull the wool over all of their eyes and get the job. choorouN ko moore
After all, being the chief architect of Munharraf's miracle economy, Shortcut Aziz can boast "poverty reduction" by juggling around with statistics and definitions. Such shifts in the yardsticks adopted have distorted results beyond belief. For instance, a new methodology led the government to change the poverty line figure in 2001. Thus an income of Rs878 per month per capita was taken as the poverty line. This amount is at complete odds with the facts on the ground.
As for the Munharraf himself, he's gone. Don't be surprised if he restores the courts as a parting kick. My Tiberius-Caligula theory (post #82) is looking more and more plausible.
...SR
These Arabs may think of themselves as astute, but they are the patsies in this deal. As for Shaukat Aziz, it will soon be very clear who does he really pimp for? The Arabs or the bankers.
Abu Dhabi Investment Authority bought US$ 7.5 Billion worth of shares in Citigroup. This is, of course, a paltry amount of money to "invest" in the biggest - and one of the most shaky - of the US money center banks. That didn't stop the Dow making up almost all the ground it had lost on the previous day and the US Dollar rebounding.
Several aspects of this deal were not mentioned in the financial headlines which led to the abrupt US market turnaround. One was the fact - as reported by the state-run "WAM" news agency in Abu Dhabi - that on the previous day, Citigroup interim Chairman (and ex US Treasury Secretary) Robert Rubin had met with Abu Dhabi officials to discuss: "world stock markets and their impact on the performance of banks." Second, the government-controlled Abu Dhabi "sovereign wealth fund" had actually bought US$ 7.5 Billion of convertible shares. Another was Mr Rubin's pledge, given after taking over from Charles Prince who recently "resigned" as Citigroup's CEO, that the bank would preserve the dividend and weather THIS YEAR'S mortgage market decline.
What Abu Dhabi has bought is US$ 7.5 Billion worth of convertible shares which can be swapped for as many as 235.6 million ordinary shares at prices ranging from $31.83 and $37.27 between March 15, 2010 and September 15, 2011. In the meantime, these convertible shares pay an interest rate of ELEVEN PERCENT, almost double the rate Citigroup offers its bond buyers. This is a junk bond yield.
For its 11 percent, Citigroup gets an amount of "liquidity" which will just cover the reported US$ 7 Billion write-off in mortgage related securities it took in the third quarter. Alternatively, it would allow Mr Rubin to avoid cutting the present dividend paid by Citicorp - for less than nine months.
It appears from this deal that everybody is hoping to dupe everyone else. And yes, Shortcut Aziz may be able to pull the wool over all of their eyes and get the job. choorouN ko moore
After all, being the chief architect of Munharraf's miracle economy, Shortcut Aziz can boast "poverty reduction" by juggling around with statistics and definitions. Such shifts in the yardsticks adopted have distorted results beyond belief. For instance, a new methodology led the government to change the poverty line figure in 2001. Thus an income of Rs878 per month per capita was taken as the poverty line. This amount is at complete odds with the facts on the ground.
As for the Munharraf himself, he's gone. Don't be surprised if he restores the courts as a parting kick. My Tiberius-Caligula theory (post #82) is looking more and more plausible.
...SR
#94 Posted by Salim_Chauhan on December 7, 2007 5:47:35 pm
SR {"Musharraf pushed his way to power through the barrel of a gun, and seeks to cling to power for as long as he can by weakening virtually every pillar of nationhood (rule of law, freedom of the press, human rights). Jefferson was an elected President, and during his stay did the opposite."}
AND
Hypo Chacha Al Butteesi {"The above alone should be enough to show how it is totally meaningless to compare Mush to Jefferson - or indeed to any elected leader of any democratic nation!!"}
Gentlemen,
First of all, let me inform you that Narinder Alexander Modi is the elected CM of Gujarat, an important state of a democratic nation. Now, can you compare Mushy to Modi?
Now, as for Mr. Jefferson, yes he was elected to the high office of President of the United States. But, the author of the Declaration of Independence and the words "All men are created equal..." never included blacks as part of "all men." He banged his slave girl, actually his half-sister in law (an illegitimate off-spring of his father-in-law and his wife's half-sister, who happened to be half black. He abused this very young girl and never married her - producing many many bastards from this abusive master/slave relationship. He never freed her or all of his "red-haired" slave children, most of whom were sold off to settle his debts at his death. I submit that Mushy is a lot better than either Modi or Mushy - despit what Chacha may assert.
AND
Hypo Chacha Al Butteesi {"The above alone should be enough to show how it is totally meaningless to compare Mush to Jefferson - or indeed to any elected leader of any democratic nation!!"}
Gentlemen,
First of all, let me inform you that Narinder Alexander Modi is the elected CM of Gujarat, an important state of a democratic nation. Now, can you compare Mushy to Modi?
Now, as for Mr. Jefferson, yes he was elected to the high office of President of the United States. But, the author of the Declaration of Independence and the words "All men are created equal..." never included blacks as part of "all men." He banged his slave girl, actually his half-sister in law (an illegitimate off-spring of his father-in-law and his wife's half-sister, who happened to be half black. He abused this very young girl and never married her - producing many many bastards from this abusive master/slave relationship. He never freed her or all of his "red-haired" slave children, most of whom were sold off to settle his debts at his death. I submit that Mushy is a lot better than either Modi or Mushy - despit what Chacha may assert.
#95 Posted by HP on December 7, 2007 11:03:27 pm
First, let me just enjoy this about Shortcut Aziz ‘rumor has it that he maybe the next ceo of Citibank.’ I say heheheh to that!
People just don’t understand American institutions and an institution like the Citibank. Citibank is the largest money center bank in US and no way pygmies like Shortcut aziz could ever get closer to the ceo position. I mean if you wanna write a joke make it look like a joke.
About the great (another hehehe moment here) analysis by #93 here. This person is so subjective. The Abu Dhabi deal was pulled by the Citibank to get some cash infusion but if someone were to look at the deal carefully, Abu Dhabi’s 7.5 billions are probably financed by some other bank that’s why it carries 11% ….ooops rate of interest.
Citibank’s exposure to the sub prime is way more than $7 billion. And soon we will see Citibank pulling some more deals outside of the US financial system. Still there is no way Citibank is going down nor are $7.5 billion enough to save it.
People just don’t understand American institutions and an institution like the Citibank. Citibank is the largest money center bank in US and no way pygmies like Shortcut aziz could ever get closer to the ceo position. I mean if you wanna write a joke make it look like a joke.
About the great (another hehehe moment here) analysis by #93 here. This person is so subjective. The Abu Dhabi deal was pulled by the Citibank to get some cash infusion but if someone were to look at the deal carefully, Abu Dhabi’s 7.5 billions are probably financed by some other bank that’s why it carries 11% ….ooops rate of interest.
Citibank’s exposure to the sub prime is way more than $7 billion. And soon we will see Citibank pulling some more deals outside of the US financial system. Still there is no way Citibank is going down nor are $7.5 billion enough to save it.
#96 Posted by Pardesi on December 8, 2007 2:42:19 am
#95 HP [First, let me just enjoy this about Shortcut Aziz ‘rumor has it that he maybe the next ceo of Citibank.’]
You are right. Never heard his name mentioned in the local media.
Vikram Pandit is rumored to be close to getting the nod early next week. This is not bad after Citi paid close to $800 Million to buy his hedge fund.
You are right. Never heard his name mentioned in the local media.
Vikram Pandit is rumored to be close to getting the nod early next week. This is not bad after Citi paid close to $800 Million to buy his hedge fund.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- bubba: Hey dude, this is... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- bubba: Hey dude, this is... Mumbai Attacks: Shocking
- anil: Re: # 45 HP sahib: "...Is... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- jayp: Among the doom and... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- harish_hyd: #45 by HP The evidence... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- jayp: BERLIN: Germany agreed Sunday... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- HP: #41 Posted by anil "Pakistan... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- rf786: Its all about economics. Operation... Karachi Riots! Who is
