The LA Times has a rather silly piece, where they interview “body language” experts on yesterday’s Presidential debate. The highlight for me was this little bit about pronunciation:

But Glass, who thought the debate was a draw, said Obama seemed unnatural at times. “Somebody coached him and did not do him a favor,” she said. “When he talks about an issue he’s passionate about, his gestures are fluid and real, but other times, he took his index finger and clasped it to his thumb, and it’s phony, it’s not real.”

She also thought his inflection might be a turn-off to some voters. “He’d say, ‘Pahk-ee-stahn,’ or ‘Tolly-bahn.’ You need to say Pakistan and Taliban like everyone else.” (link)

Um, is it possible he pronounces it correctly because… it’s actually the correct pronunciation?

Some bloggers over at the National Review’s “The Corner” have picked up on this as well (thanks for the tip, Sree):

The National Review’s Mark Stein, for example, said that Obama prefers the “exotic pronunciation.” He added, “[O]ne thing I like about Sarah Palin is the way she says ‘Eye-raq’.”

This came after the National Review’s Kathryn Jean Lopez posted an email that argued, “[N]o one in flyover country says Pock-i-stahn. It’s annoying.” (link)

Actually, I know plenty of people in certain “flyover countries” — i.e., in the Indian subcontinent — who pronounce it exactly that way.

Welcome to the United States of Stupidistan, folks. Continue reading →

Well, it took three years and it nearly toppled Manmohan Singh’s UPA government, but the India-U.S. nuclear deal was finally ratified in the U.S. Senate last night (along with some other trivial legislation…). On NPR yesterday, I heard snippets of speeches supporting the deal from Republican Senator Richard Lugar and Democratic Senator Chris Dodd (who is almost as ubiquitous as the top 40 M.I.A. these days). I also heard a Democratic Senator, Byron Dorgan, from North Dakota, who opposed it. India’s fourteen civilian nuclear reactors will be under international inspection, but eight military reactors will operate without inspection.

Interestingly, India has also just signed a nuclear deal with France, after getting a general waiver from the Nuclear Suppliers Group. So clearly the work that went into the main India-U.S. deal is already paying off for India in some surprising ways. There is further talk of a deal with Russia in weeks to come.

Though I’ve supported the deal from the beginning, one of the arguments against it from the American side seems worth considering: if you grant India an exemption for civilian nuclear energy, even though it didn’t play by the rules and sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and even though it engaged in testing ten years ago, you weaken the argument against allowing countries like Iran to develop civilian nuclear energy.

Does that hold water? I tend to think not, since the point is moot if India already has nuclear technology and is committed to not sharing it with nations that want it. But the Times quotes one Michael Krepon who thinks it will be a problem:

Michael Krepon, co-founder of the Henry L. Stimson Center, a research organization in Washington, called the promise of big dollars and American jobs “pure fantasy” and predicted that the United States would regret further opening the nuclear door.

“There will be a reckoning for this agreement,” he said. “You can argue till you’re blue in the face that India is a special case. But what happens in one country affects what happens in others.” (link)

There is a full-length critique of the deal by Michael Krepon here, published in 2006. Continue reading →

By now most readers will have seen the news that Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan’s President, has resigned from his post rather than face impeachment charges. While for some this might seem like a happy day, a slightly closer look at the situation in Pakistan suggests that the country is not now headed for greater stability or economic prosperity.

Since his party lost the Parliamentary elections earlier this spring, he was already essentially irrelevant. The threat of impeachment announced by Asif Ali Zardari and Nawaz Sharif in recent weeks says more about the desperation of the new coalition government than it does about Musharraf himself.

In the weeks to come, I’m sure we’ll see a number of accounts of the fall of Musharraf, ranging from, “well, he was bad, but these guys are worse,” to “well, he was so bad that the room can’t help but smell better now that he’s gone.” There might even be a couple of people saying that he was actually good for Pakistan (democracy is overrated), good for women’s rights (he got a couple of laws passed; who cares about Mukhtar Mai, anyway?), and an invaluable ally to the United States in the fight against Islamic extremism (though I’m not sure how anyone could really make that argument with a straight face).

A preliminary account worth reading, which leans towards the first position, comes from Fatima Bhutto, Benazir Bhutto’s niece (but no fan of her aunt or her aunt’s widower, Asif Ali Zardari). Bhutto who starts off with a description of the recent press conference where Zardari and Sharif expressed their moral outrage about Musharraf’s “anti-democratic” actions as President and head of the military:

Zardari snarled every time Musharraf’s name came up, seething with political rage and righteousness, while Sharif did his best to keep up with the pace of things. He nodded sombrely and harrumphed every once in a while. The two men are acting for democracy, you see. And impeaching dictators is a good thing for democracies, you know.

But Nawaz Sharif and Asif Zardari are unelected. They’re not just unrepresentative in that they don’t hold seats in the parliament – they have absolutely no mandate in Pakistan. They head the two largest, and most corrupt, parties in the state but hold no public office. Pots and kettles.

Continue reading →