Strategic Depth at Home

Reply #: 279 Urstruly

[(1) If a member of a Parliamentary Party defects, he may be…….``. The keyword in the text is ``a member of a Parliamentary Party``, which means if an elected member defects then the law is applicable to him. This law actually protects the constituents who voted for that member of parliament on the basis of his political convictions, and when he got elected he changed his political convictions thus defrauding his constituents. This law prevents floor crossing and horse trading.]

Urstruly .. you fight big and strong, but there are curtains on eyes and ears of people. They have never understood and they never will. But we`ll keep on. Nothing will deter us.

Thanks my friend. I salute you.

Zeemax

re fuzair #278:

Rrgression analysis with rational deduction has its limits. You are getting a little carried away with your beef with subjective perspectives. I agree with your posts about feminazis demanding an equaltarian rather than an egalitarian society however your assertion to brush aside all subjective experience as deficient is rather extreme.

There is always a place for human intervention and deduction even when the numbers are saying quite the opposite. I see it in my profession all the time. Whether the human mind is a far more complex number crunching machine whose functioning is beyond the realm of our understanding or subjective reasoning(based on individual experience) is as valid a tool for forming counter opinions is open to conjecture. As is true in most cases the truth depends on your vantage point.

later

-sac

P.S: I do have a couple of hilarious stories for your liberation of males league but they`ll have to wait for a more opportune time.

Fuzair you write ``Women who choose to have babies earn less money for the reasons I have detailed earlier``. I see a chink in your armor sir. It is not the woman alone who chooses to have babies, but a man is involved as well. Takes two to tango. So you should write ``Couples who choose to have babies earn less money for the reasons I have detailed earlier``. This means, men with children should have their 23% (or whatever is the income differential in society) of their lifelong income deducted. So, the gender gap in income will be replaced by a ``parenthood gap`` whereby couples with children get 23% less than childless couples, and 11.5% less than childless singles.

You could of course then place a suitable tax on the childless folks (``Propogation of the Species Tax, or PST for short, kind of like a VAT tax) and bring everyone up to par.

You can go through all this, or you can simply accept the fact that just as honesty is the best policy, so is decency towards women the best policy. Logic certainly is not on your side.

Fuzair,

re: ``I was labelling a certain group of women ``hysterical,`` etc. based upon how they made their arguments. You will pardon me if I do not choose to be impressed by histrionics, wild accusations and a complete unwillingness (inability?) to think rationally or logically about issues. Is that what passes for scholarship in Women`s Studies and the like?``

Well, actually a lot more passes for Women Studies; are you familliar with Luce Irigaray, Elaine Showalter, Kate Millett, Fatima Mernissi, Julia Kristeva, and Helen Cixous? Are you familliar with Shoshana Felman`s deconstruction of the principle of ``logoscentricism``? If not, how could you possibly decide what is meaningless or not? Many of these theories work in tandem with more (yes, Fuzair, grip that table, get ready) progessive systems of democracy. But, do read these theorists before making any irrational judgements.

``BTW, thanks for posting that NYT study. Unfortunately it is completely useless since it doesn`t describe the methodology used.``



How surprising. Intially you waved away the reality in income disparaties as insignificant, and negligable. Now that the study, a recent one that illustrates that the disparity has actually increased, 1. it`s not interesting 2. it`s not credible (even though it seems to come from an institution that has nothing to gain) 3.it`

s useless, because the NYTimes always prints the methodologies that news worthy stories use. Sounds like nothing pleases you. Another attempt at delegitmising a rather mainstream study.

``My guess is that its more of the same: raw averages do ``prove`` discrimination but they also prove how ignorant the people who carried out the study are. ``



And this comment is based on what form of logic?

``Go ask your Stats friend about how to run a regression and make a really good model (i.e., if you actually want useful results and not just to ``prove`` your political point). I`m sure she knows more than I do about this stuff since I am not an econometrician.``



Indeed I will. What I won`t do is post her comments to you, since it seems this entire conversation has been a game of switch and bait, in which you make all kinds of slippery remarks that differ from post to post. About 6 monthes ago, you were against affirmative action, but this week you are for aa for eco disadvantaged individuals. You support progressive women activists in Pakistan, but I`m sure that you wont make the connection between between their grassroots work and progressive agendas. You like ``some`` feminists, but not the ones that disagree with you, or contend what mainstream studies bear out. Clearly the center of your arguments doesn`t hold.

``...Once they started famillies, mothers who were managers could count on earning 66 percent of what fathers who were managers were paid, she said....``

Btw, these women in managerial positions are not all white. I have several aunts, cousins and a mother who fall into this category. And they left Pakistan because there were no jobs for them.

``I think this quotation says it all. Women who choose to have babies earn less money for the reasons I have detailed earlier.``

No, its not a choice. Its our institutions deciding that women who choose to ``have it all`` as their husbands should be penalized for stepping out of their so called biological roles as caretakers and nurturers. This should be about choices for women, made by women who are citizens. You pointed out that your friend had to leave his job in order to be a fully present father. I would argue that this discrimination affects both women and men like your friend, who of course, should be applauded and supported for wanting to be an intergral part of child raising.



Btw, you refused to engage a significant theme in this article; that women-headed households are affected by this glass ceiling (which doesnt exist, according to one of your posts)during an impending recession.

No ``discrimination.`` Why don`t you admit it that you have a political agenda? You want the US to look more like the Scandinavian welfare state where the govt pays for everything and the top marginal tax rate used to be 102%? In short, you want an equalitarian society, not an egalitarian one.



Yes, I do have a political agenda. No bones about it. Yes, I think our socialist Scandinavian neighbors have some good ideas. So sorry.

Romair

``Could you point out when and where he said he would go back to the barracks after Oct 2002?``

Those were the days when Musharaf was not an apple of West`s eye. The mantra that, he will go back to barracks after 10/02, used to be daily whenever they (army) needed to re-schedule the next installment of loan from IMF and other soodkhors. That was the mandate given to him by the supreme court of Pakistan and he agreed to it. Yaar what is this? chori aur seena zori?

`` Are you aware of any amendments made to the constitution?``

I never said amendments, I said ``rape`` right out. The recent changes in election laws, changing the representative structure in the assemblies, changing the laws on separate electorate; the military courts that are being established to persecute political opponents and thus denying citizens the due process of law and constitutional protections. And not to mention the handing over of our military installations to the enemy. If he has not become a bigger security risk to Paksitan then what is.

`` Infact it was Nawaz Sharif who completely condemned the constitution with the 14th amendment that allowed him to get rid of any party members that voted against him.``

The 14th Amendment that you have mentioned is called `` CONSTITUTION (FOUTEENTH AMENDMENT) ACT, 1997``; the keyword is ``ACT`` which means 2/3rd of the parliament voted for the proposed legislation and it also passed the scrutiny of the Senate. I fail to comprehend how a law passed through constitutional procedures is Un-Constitutional- just because you don’t like it?. And if you look at the text of the legislation it says `` Article 63A Disqualification on ground of defection, etc.--- (1) If a member of a Parliamentary Party defects, he may be…….``. The keyword in the text is ``a member of a Parliamentary Party``, which means if an elected member defects then the law is applicable to him. This law actually protects the constituents who voted for that member of parliament on the basis of his political convictions, and when he got elected he changed his political convictions thus defrauding his constituents. This law prevents floor crossing and horse trading. Similar laws exist in Britain, where you have to leave your elected position before you change your party. So the question remains how this law is un-constitutional.

{ His Shariah Bill, through amendment 15 would have completely put the constitution on the backburner. An idiotic version of Shariah would have reigned supreme. And NS would have been able to get things passed just through simple majority. The coup actually saved the constitution from being over run by the Shariah Bill.}

Sharia bill is idiotic or not, it should never be an issue, the issue should be if you do not like the legislation, which has just passed the lower house, what was your (the opponents) political strategy to counter that. A coup? So it means that coup was all planned and general`s constant whining that ``I had no choice`` is plain bull-crap. And it also supports the skepticism that Musharaf and company had already planned a coup way ahead, which was due to execute as soon as his plane landed on the ground. Otherwise how is it possible with in a 1 hour and 30 minutes while Musharaf`s plane was circling in the air to not only rescue him but also to sack a whole elected government in that short interval of time. And if you are trying to tell me that Army planned all this just in those 1 hour and 30 minutes and then executed the plan then I would say ``Pak Fauj ko Salaam``. I stand in awe.

Weeeel, there you go again. I was labelling a certain group of women ``hysterical,`` etc. based upon how they made their arguments. You will pardon me if I do not choose to be impressed by histrionics, wild accusations and a complete unwillingness (inability?) to think rationally or logically about issues. Is that what passes for scholarship in Women`s Studies and the like?

BTW, thanks for posting that NYT study. Unfortunately it is completely useless since it doesn`t describe the methodology used. My guess is that its more of the same: raw averages do ``prove`` discrimination but they also prove how ignorant the people who carried out the study are. Go ask your Stats friend about how to run a regression and make a really good model (i.e., if you actually want useful results and not just to ``prove`` your political point). I`m sure she knows more than I do about this stuff since I am not an econometrician.

``...Once they started famillies, mothers who were managers could count on earning 66 percent of what fathers who were managers were paid, she said....``

I think this quotation says it all. Women who choose to have babies earn less money for the reasons I have detailed earlier. No ``discrimination.`` Why don`t you admit it that you have a political agenda? You want the US to look more like the Scandinavian welfare state where the govt pays for everything and the top marginal tax rate used to be 102%? In short, you want an equalitarian society, not an egalitarian one.

Reply #: 204 saminashah

[critiques the power imbalance between those who look/discuss and those who are looked at/discussed. How might that dynamic be applied to this board?]

That`s exactly what happens when women`s rights are discussed. I noticed you complained that not many women are participating though this board is about them. Women themselves for some reason do not participate but prefer to be talked about or defended. Maybe it`s cultural inhibitions.

That`s also what I pervceive as a chip on the shoulder. Women are perceived to have been wronged, whether true or not, and they would rather carry the flag of womanhood for their men to take of their cause, rather than they doing it themselves. They would rather make men feel guilty over some perceived wrongs done to them without achieving a proper role in society, which was never denied to them. You can just take the example of many women in our history who were great leaders and matriarchs.

I`m a firm believer, that society cannot function without due role by women in it`s functiong. As to what that role might be? It`s open to debate.

Rgds

Zeemax

Urstruly #268: ``He said he would go away after October 2002 to the barracks``

Could you point out when and where he said he would go back to the barracks after Oct 2002? All I heard him say was that he would hold elections in Oct 2002. Infact he seemed pretty straightforward about the fact that he will stay on.

``but instead he has condemned the constitution to the toilet``

Are you aware of any amendments made to the constitution? The Supreme Court has greatly limited the govts. power to amend the constitution. It is the same constitution that he inherited. Infact it was Nawaz Sharif who completely condemned the constitution with the 14th amendment that allowed him to get rid of any party members that voted against him. His Shariah Bill, through amendment 15 would have completely put the constitution on the backburner. An idiotic version of Shariah would have reigned supreme. And NS would have been able to get things passed just through simple majority. The coup actually saved the constitution from being over run by the Shariah Bill.

Are you aware of how long Z. Bhutto waited before discarding the 73 constitution in certain provinces through governor`s rule type martial laws?

So while I agree that Musharraf, through his martial law, has put the constitution on the side for three years, I don`t think it is in the toilet. All previous leaders have however condemned it. You have a choice amongst these leaders. If there was an electable leader who is honest and does not condemn the constitution to the toilet, then I will definitely support him/her.

To paraphrase Cowasjee, ``It is better to have a General in command, then a thief.``

Musharraf, Zia and Ayub are three different people, just like Jinnah and Altaf Hussain are different people, and Nawaz and Allama Iqbal are different people (even though they hail from the same provinces, ethnicities or institutions).

``Since that time, I have watched with great interest all the johnny-come-latelys attempt to jump on his bandwagon (including US Presidents).````(romair miaN)

US president jumping on ``Mushrraf`s band wagon`` – Walla keya analysis ki hai -- iss saadgee pe kaun na.... -- by any chance –- could it be the other way? -- nah it couldn’t be.

rSridhar # 250

audio-video radio etc etc etc is Studbraker etc etc etc----.

Urstruly #254

Thanks for all the compliments.

Oye Musalmano Kamjato, Kamino, Behaya, Befaa, Zaleemo, Gundo, Besharmo, saur - have some shame. It is very cold in New York so Shammi is hibernating in the Basement. I will let him know you remembered.

Fuzair,

Actually if go back and read your posts they are chockfull of typical male dismissal, starting from ``hysterical`` , compassing ``shrill`` and so forth. I don`t see my posts as falling into any of these categories and whats more`s, unless you acknowledge that you are in effect, labelling critiques of patriarchical structures in an age old manner of discrediting and marginalizing those critiques, an intellectual dishonesty is at work. Its really not my concern to write my viewpoints in a manner that is appealing to you, and I find some of your viewpoints extremely shortsighted and yes, male chauvinistic. I could pad my points with comments like, ``Relax`` and ``Don`t take it so seriously`` etc., but I won`t. But do be honest, at the very least.



My pointing to the sector we label ``privilleged white women`` and the discrimination they are facing in the prof. working world was meant to illustrate that if these economically middle class women workers are facing difficulty, imagine what the classes you profess to be concerned about are dealing with. Use it as reference point, and stop the bs about how wonderful our current systems are.

Study Finds a Growing Gap Between Managerial Salaries for Men and Women

by Elizabeth Becker

The difference in managerial salaries for men and women in American industry grew from 1985 to 2000, a Congressional study has found.

During one of the nations biggest economic booms, managerial salaries for women not only failed to catch to those of their male counterparts, they lost ground in several industries, according to the study which was released today.

In entertainment, communication, finance, insurance and retailing, the study said, the gap between men and women grew as much as 21 cents for every dollar earned.

The report by the General Accounting Office, the independent research office of Congress, looked at the salaries in the 10 industries that employed the most women from 1995-2000. I t defined a manager as any job whose description included the words administrator. director, manager of supervisor. Among other controls, the study compared salaries for full time employees only.

The study also found that women continued to be scarce in managerial ranks. Over all, women make up roughly half the workforce but only 12 percent of the corporate officers.

``While there has been overall progress for women, they are stalling or sliding back when they reach management,`` said Representative Carolyn Maloney, Democrat of Manhattan, who commissioned the study.

Mothers lost the most ground according to the report.

``The widest gap was between parents``, who were managers, said Martha Riche, an economist and former director of the Census Bureau who vetted the study for the accouting office.

...Once they started famillies, mothers who were managers could count on earning 66 percent of what fathers who were managers were paid, she said....

Women now provide at least half of the income for more than two thirds of American famillies.

``This is no longer a women`s issue, but a family issue,`` said Rep. John Dingell, Democrat od Michigan.

NYTimes, 1/24/02

Ref Romair #: 260

[Urstruly #255: I failed to understand your replies. Are you suggesting that Musharraf and Maleeha Lodhi aren`t good leaders, and not doing a good job, because they are on the Newsweek list.

There was actually one Hindu on the latest Newsweek list: Vajpayee. So you need to look at the list again.]

Urstruly is taking remedial courses at the Detroit madrassah on identifying kaffirs. As Jay is wont to say, he might have temporarily forgotten his `k for kaffir` education.

Ref hobbyty #: 263

[For more than 15 years, the world has refused to acknowledge the fascist goings on in India - Today, Indians themslves are are awakening from the stupor of the fascist instinct they have have nutured.Witness: ``the illiberal tendencies a military dictator seeks to expel, with popular support, from Pakistan seem to be finding a hospitable home in democratic India.``]

If electing Hindutva politicians is fascist, what do you call the enactment of the Blasphemy Law and the Hudood Ordinances in Pakistan? Democracy reflecting the popular will of the people?

We don`t need any fcuking lecture from fundamentalist Muslims like you tell us what fascism is. We will recognize it and nip it in the bud. The maximum allowed term for fascism or communism or any other ism in India is 5 years; after which they have to face the electorate to continue their policy.

Dost Mitter

Romair has just informed me that Bajpayee`s name is also on the list. Oh boy! you people are fcuked too. And am I happy.

Romair

What I wrote in my post has nothing to do with good or bad leadership skills of the general. And it also does not have anything to do with being an American puppet or not.

The point that I always try to make wrt general is that, even the most benevelont of the dictator has to work in two parallel fields simultaneously-he can do all the good to his people on one hand but on the other hand he is condemend to do everything bad to the same people to stay in power. The times of kingships, and sultanates are long gone. And I dont buy your assertion that he has done what he always said. He said he would go away after October 2002 to the barracks but instead he has condemned the constitution to the toilet and expected to stay as long as his C-130 doesnt blow up in the skies. He said he will establish the rule of law, and what he did is that he has incarcinated citizens of pakistan on the charges for which legislation is yet to be invented, courts yet to be established.

Admit it that he has now tasted the blood of people, and he is gonna keep his teeth stuck to our jugular until one of us whither and die. In simple words Paksitan has lost another chance at rule of constitution and law for next decades or two. We have regressed as a society to early Ayoub years. Yeah Ayoub was benevolent; he industrialized a fragile nation and taught it to stand on its feet, but at what cost? At the cost of half of the country. What good is that benevolence. What good is that leadership.