Wootopia.net

It’s been hard to not pay attention to the proposed $700 billion bail-out that has been discussed so much in the last couple of weeks, and will very likely be passed by both houses of Congress and signed into law by President Bush.  People from many different educational attainments, economic backgrounds and political ideologies have weighed in.  The media has framed the subject as a necessity, despite fierce opposition by the public, and various government officials have made claims that there is essentially no other choice.  

 

I don’t begin to understand the entire issue; and I don’t know how the ramifications of passing this $700 billion bailout are going to play out.  I’ve heard opinions that this bailout is necessary to allow consumers to continue getting credit, and I’ve heard opinions that too much easy credit is a fundamental problem, not just in our financial sector but as a social/political issue, and less credit is probably a healthy thing.  I’ve heard opinions that no matter what we do, we’re in for a recession.  I don’t have a good response to any of these claims.

 

However, something I do understand is pissing me off.  There’s an endless parade of talking heads, assuring us that there is going to be “No golden parachutes for top executives!”  - and the more I think about this, the less sense it makes.  

 

Those golden parachutes make up, at most, what, $100 million?  That’s chump change in light of $700 billion.  I expect the way to understand this is that it’s basically sugar to help the medicine go down.  The taxpayers are stuck with a $700 billion bill, but hey, Congress sure did stick it to those greedy Wall Street fat-cats!  

 

Excuse me, Marie says I’ve got to go eat cake.

I’ve been watching with interest the conflict between Anonymous and the Church of Scientology. Not because I care deeply about either group, mind, but simply because I think we’re seeing something new here, or at least, seeing something fairly new in sharp relief - the rise of the internet-enabled, decentralized pressure group. Flash mobs and online petitions are nothing new, but the size and organization of this one is interesting. The challenge is to see if an essentially anarchic internet movement can sustain itself over the coming weeks and months. Is their passion to defeat a well-funded, well-organized opponent going to be enough to keep them together?

I bet this would make a great sociology project for someone…

Yesterday, Pakistan’s former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto perished as a result of a suicide attack, along with at least 20 others, at a rally. Bhutto was on the campaign trail, campaigning for the Pakistan People’s Party. Unfortunately, I recieve conflicting reports from the US media as to her exact status in this campaign - on the one hand, I’m hearing that she was a popular figure, widely liked by moderates; and at the same time that her previous administrations were very corrupt, and her influence was much greater outside of Pakistan than within it. While there there is evidently some despute as to the exact cause of her death, that this was a targeted attack against her seems clear. The question the rest of the world is asking itself is, “What’s next?”

The elections are scheduled for January 8th. Given that Pakistan had just emerged from a state of martial law imposed by President Musharraf, it may be the case that elections will be moved back, or martial law may be redeclared. Bhutto had evidently contacted CNN’s Wolf Blitzer shortly before the contact via email, indicating her belief that were she to be assassinated, she thought the finger should be pointed at Musharraf, for failing to provide adequate security.

Given the largest concern for the rest of the world is probably going to be maintaining the stability of Pakistan and (more cynically) the nation’s nuclear arsenal, Musharraf may be able to once again play the “I’m keeping the peace, and the nukes out of the hands of radical Islamists” card and maintain his grip on power. While my suspicion is that current reporting is correct; that radical Islamists (who may or may not have any al-Qaeda ties) were responsible for the attack, Musharraf will no doubt milk this for all it’s worth. Various doomsday scenarios are being argued about on the internet, the most colorful involving a civil war which allows nukes to fall into some unspecified terrorist group’s hands, allowing the civil war to spill into a regional and perhaps global conflict.

On the other hand, I’m simply an American observer, who has little experience with the internal affairs of Pakistan. Let me instead direct you to www.nadirs.com - run by a Pakistani colleague of mine; he’ll doubtlessly have far more intelligent things to say on the matter than I - and perhaps much of the media - will.

My condolences to the families of Benazir Bhutto and the others who died in the attack.