tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-65639326152645358112024-03-14T03:44:13.565-04:00Boston BrahminBoston Brahminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09264347464781848957noreply@blogger.comBlogger66125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6563932615264535811.post-4075390372014900962010-10-23T13:08:00.002-04:002010-10-23T13:29:55.953-04:00Plain talkingSteve Coll of the New America Foundation always provides excellent analysis. The main thrust of his latest article, "Kashmir: The Time Has Come", is that Barack Obama needs to do some plain talking, as when he did about the Kashmir problem before his election in an interview:<br /><blockquote><br />For us to devote serious diplomatic resources to get a special envoy in there, to figure out a plausible approach, and essentially make the argument to the Indians, you guys are on the brink of being an economic superpower—why do you want to keep on messing with this? To make the argument to the Pakistanis, look at India and what they are doing—why do you want to keep on being bogged down with this particular [issue] at a time when the biggest threat now is coming from the Afghan border? I think there is a moment when potentially we could get their attention. It won’t be easy, but it’s important.<br /></blockquote><br />(<a href="http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2010/kashmir_the_time_has_come_36745">Link to Steve Coll's article</a>)<br /><br />Coll advocates plain talking by the U.S. administration in this way:<br /><blockquote><br />A reconsidered American approach to Kashmir should return first of all to the tone of Obama’s Time interview: honest talk about an admittedly difficult problem. More such straight talk is now required. The United States and India share an interest in the emergence of a stable, economically successful Pakistan with an army that believes it is in Pakistan’s national interest to stop fomenting jihadi violence in Afghanistan and India. It is difficult to imagine that such a Pakistan will evolve if groups such as Lashkar are not disarmed, delegitimized, and defunded. And it is difficult to imagine that such an achievement would be possible in the absence of a political settlement that satisfies the great majority of Kashmiris and delivers economic benefits to Pakistan, such as preferential access for textiles to American markets, as well as water and energy security. President Obama and his foreign policy team should articulate this alternative to the status quo before Indian and Pakistani publics, without embarrassment.</blockquote><br />These sentiments are correct, but missing from Coll's argument is the conversion of the Pakistan army into a normal military force, subject to political control. This, Coll should know, is the crux of the problem in South Asia. No amount of convincing Pakistanis and Indians is going to matter a whit as long as the Pakistan army's incentives remain intact: incentives that reward state-funded terrorism with American money to the military, and a military budget that finances foolhardy wars but that remains secret from civilian view, let alone civilian control.<br /><br />Coll's thesis here might be more convincing if he talked more plainly about the Pakistan army and about what the U.S. administration could do to put it back in its box. Yesterday's announcement of 2 billion in fresh military aid shows that this administration does not believe it has any options, and that any diplomatic talk is just hot air.Boston Brahminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09264347464781848957noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6563932615264535811.post-52272392381045756872010-10-08T04:22:00.003-04:002010-10-08T04:28:46.831-04:00Nilekani's ideasAn excellent, quick summary of where India is today, from Nandan Nilekani at TED.<br /><br />Nilekani explains using a few key ideas, for example:<blockquote><br />It used to be that we thought people were mouths to feed, but now we think of them as an asset.<br /></blockquote><br /><br />From <a href="http://www.ted.com">TED's</a> blurb:<blockquote><br />Nandan Nilekani, visionary CEO of outsourcing pioneer Infosys, explains four brands of ideas that will determine whether India can continue its recent breakneck progress.</blockquote><br /><br />In fifteen minutes, Nilekani outlines quite a vision of where India is and where it needs to be. Worth watching. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cYDyMnL4M8">(Watch 15-minute clip on YouTube)</a>Boston Brahminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09264347464781848957noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6563932615264535811.post-70293849604311134142010-09-30T11:37:00.002-04:002010-09-30T11:50:40.709-04:00Human rights? Meh!Today's New York Times has <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/30/world/asia/30pstan.html">a report by Jane Perlez</a>:<br /><blockquote><br />An Internet video showing men in Pakistani military uniforms executing six young men in civilian clothes has heightened concerns about unlawful killings by Pakistani soldiers supported by the United States, American officials said.<br /><br />The authenticity of the five-and-a-half-minute video, which shows the killing of the six men — some of whom appear to be teenagers, blindfolded, with their hands bound behind their backs — has not been formally verified by the American government. The Pakistani military said it was faked by militants.<br /><br />But American officials, who did not want to be identified because of the explosive nature of the video, said it appeared to be credible, as did retired American military officers and intelligence analysts who have viewed it.<br /></blockquote><br /><br />So, what happens now?<br /><blockquote><br />The video adds to reports under review at the State Department and the Pentagon that Pakistani Army units have summarily executed prisoners and civilians in areas where they have opened offensives against the Taliban, administration officials said.<br /><br />The reports could have serious implications for relations between the militaries. American law requires that the United States cut off financing to units of foreign militaries that are found to have committed gross violations of human rights.<br /><br />But never has that law been applied to so strategic a partner as Pakistan, whose military has received more than $10 billion in American support since 2001 for its cooperation in fighting militants from the Taliban and Al Qaeda based inside the country. <br /></blockquote><br />Holding your breath? Best you don't.Boston Brahminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09264347464781848957noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6563932615264535811.post-70150759319227267922010-08-29T08:24:00.003-04:002010-08-29T08:50:47.690-04:00Old habits die hardA hopeful story from Pakistan (may its tribe increase), spoiled by the usual old American habits of short-term thinking.<br /><br />The New York Times tells us about the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/world/asia/29feudal.html">new breed of politicians rising in Pakistan</a>.<blockquote>In Pakistan, where politics has long been a matter of pedigree, Jamshed Dasti is a mongrel. The scrappy son of an amateur wrestler, Mr. Dasti has clawed his way into Pakistan’s Parliament, beating the wealthy, landed families who have ruled here.</blockquote><br /><br />This is a big change. As the article explains,<blockquote>For years, feudal lords reigned supreme, serving as the police, the judge and the political leader. Plantations had jails, and political seats were practically owned by families.<br /><br />Instead of midwifing democracy, these aristocrats obstructed it, ignoring the needs of rural Pakistanis, half of whom are still landless and desperately poor more than 60 years after Pakistan became a state.</blockquote><br /><br />But now, it seems, the stranglehold of the feudal classes slowly loosens. Newer, more populist candidates get elected, who actually meet with their constituents and try to address their concerns. Of course, many of them are rough men with criminal records, but:<blockquote><br />Whatever the case, he is deeply appealing to Pakistanis, who have chosen him over feudal lords for political seats several times. Local residents call him Rescue One-Five, a reference to an emergency hot line number and his feverish work habits. Constituents clutching dirty plastic bags of documents flock to his small office for help, and he scribbles out notes for them on his Parliament letterhead like a doctor in a field hospital.</blockquote><br /><br />Contrast this example with a feudal lord:<blockquote><br />Mr. Mehmoud, 48, is a wealthy man of leisure, who spends more time relaxing in his house — a pink replica of a Rajasthani palace with a hand-carved facade — than on his job as a lawmaker. Sometimes he talks to his constituents, but more often he watches them go by from the window of his speedy, white Hummer.<br /><br />For years, people voted for him anyway, partly out of habit. His ancestors were considered to be distant relatives of the Prophet Muhammad, which inspires awe and respect. But more important, his constituents were tied to him economically. His family owned the land they worked and often their houses. His carpet has a worn patch where generations of peasants sat in supplication. </blockquote><br /><br />No wonder the feudals are losing their seats, as labor becomes more mobile and more people wake up to their rights.<br /><br />So, does the American analyst see this as a hopeful sign? Of course not:<blockquote><br />The result is a changing political landscape more representative of Pakistani society, but far less predictable for the United States. Mr. Dasti, 32, speaks no English. His legislative record includes opposition to a sexual harassment bill. He has 35 criminal cases to his name and is from the country’s conservative heartland, where dislike of America runs deep.</blockquote><br /><br />So, it doesn't matter if he's popularly elected: he doesn't speak English, is a Neanderthal like Newt Gingrich, and comes from a backward and xenophobic area, so we have a problem with it? We still haven't changed our old habits in how we look at Pakistan.<br /><br />And finally, this is the paragraph that made Boston Brahmin sputter out his morning coffee:<blockquote><br />The changes also leave room for Islamists. In the neighboring district of Dera Ghazi Khan, a hard-line mullah, Hafiz Abdul Karim, came within a few thousand votes in 2008 of unseating Farooq Leghari, a former president of Pakistan. His weapon? Efficient, Islamist campaign workers and free water pumps.<br /><br />So far, Islamists have not tapped popular frustration in a systematic way at the ballot box, and the military, the country’s oldest, strongest institution, would probably put down any broader uprising, analysts say.</blockquote><br /><br />Ah -- not to worry. Our favorite nephew, the Pakistan army, will take care of the uppity natives if needed.<br /><br />This analysis is wrong on so many levels. Let me just list three: first, even if the hard-line mullah's workers are Islamists, if he is running for elections with free water pumps, this can only be a good thing, no? Second: do we still really want the Pakistan army to intervene in politics? If running for elections and winning by giving the people water pumps is the "broader uprising", then we need more of those in Pakistan. What legitimacy does the army have in intervening? And third: have we not learned yet that the army is an ally of the Islamists, in fact the sponsor and protector of some of them? In every army action, the army picks and chooses its favorite Islamists.<br /><br />One would think that the U.S. troops being killed in Afghanistan by Pakistan army-sponsored Islamists might give these analysts pause. But no. Before Pakistan, the real change, it seems, is needed in our own analysts, whose old habits die hard.Boston Brahminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09264347464781848957noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6563932615264535811.post-23197415935009944152010-08-11T09:58:00.007-04:002010-08-11T10:21:05.730-04:00The Sun in the SkyA recent<a href="http://www.crisisstates.com/download/dp/DP%2018.pdf"> paper by Matt Waldman of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government</a> documents systematic and ongoing support by the Pakistan military of the insurgency in Afghanistan.<br /><br />Some excerpts, based on interviews with several Taliban and Haqqani commanders:<br /><blockquote>Support to the Afghan insurgency is official ISI policy. It appears to be carried out by both serving and former officers, who have considerable operational autonomy.<br /></blockquote><blockquote>A number of analysts suggest that due to American and international pressure in 2006, 2007 or later, Pakistan has curtailed its support for the insurgents, but there is little evidence to support this.</blockquote><br />Waldman summarizes that:<br /><blockquote>Pakistan appears to be playing a double-game of astonishing magnitude. The conflict has led to the deaths of over 1,000 American and 700 other foreign military personnel; thousands of Afghan soldiers, police, officials and civilians; and an unknown number of Afghan, Pakistani and other foreign insurgents. It has already cost America nearly $300 billion, and now costs over $70 billion a year. As a Haqqani commander put it: ‘Of course Pakistan is the main cause of the problems [in Afghanistan] but America is behind Pakistan.’</blockquote><br />Why is Pakistan doing this? Their overriding concern is India.<br /><blockquote>As Steve Coll explains (The New Yorker, 1 March 2010): ‘Pakistan’s generals have retained a bedrock belief that, however unruly and distasteful Islamist militias such as the Taliban may be, they could yet be useful proxies to ward off a perceived existential threat from India. In the Army’s view, at least, that threat has not receded.’<br /></blockquote><br />So, what does Waldman conclude that the U.S. should do?<br /><blockquote>The priority must be to address the fundamental causes of Pakistan’s insecurity, in particular its latent and enduring conflict with India. This requires a regional peace process and, as Bruce Riedel has argued, American backing for moves towards a resolution of the Kashmir dispute.</blockquote><br /><br />So, in other words, if the Kashmir dispute is resolved, the Pakistan army will no longer see India as a threat, and they will then stop sponsoring terrorism? This conclusion sounds weak, because it is based on the assumption that the Pakistan army's hatred of India is a rational response to something India has done or not done.<br /><br />But this hatred is not based on what India does or does not do. It is a self-sustaining mechanism of survival for the Pakistan military, whose enormous clout and influence within Pakistan depends on always having an external threat. Their hatred of India is institutionalized since the founding of Pakistan, and especially since Zia's Islamization.<br /><br />And that is as clear as the Sun in the Sky.Boston Brahminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09264347464781848957noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6563932615264535811.post-28089501909277747772010-01-20T19:31:00.006-05:002010-01-20T20:00:24.135-05:00Hearts and minds in AfghanistanThe latest ABC NEWS/BBC/ARD poll from December 2009, <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/story?id=9511961">Afghanistan--–where things stand</a>, naturally concentrates on the increasing confidence (since last year) that Afghans have in U.S. and ISAF forces and in the Afghan National Army.<br /><br />But buried within the report is a question whose answer has been almost unchanged since last year:<pre>Overall, please say if you think each of these countries<br />is playing a positive, neutral, or negative role<br />in Afghanistan now?<br /><br /> 12/23/09 – Summary table<br /><br /> Positive Neutral Negative No opinion<br />a. Russia 22 38 31 9<br />b. Iran 27 29 39 5<br />c. Pakistan 9 13 73 5<br />d. India 36 44 13 6<br />e. U.S. 45 18 31 6<br />f. U.K. 28 31 31 10<br />g. Germany 32 39 19 9<br /></pre>There is also an "overall impression" question, whose results are similar:<pre>Now I’m going to ask what you think about some people and groups.<br />Is your opinion of [INSERT] very favorable, somewhat favorable,<br />somewhat unfavorable, or very unfavorable?<br /><br /> 12/23/09 – Summary table<br /><br /> ----- Favorable ----- ---- Unfavorable ---- No<br /> NET Very Somewhat NET Somewhat Very opinion<br />a. The Taliban 10 3 7 89 13 75 1<br />b. Osama Bin Laden 6 2 4 91 13 77 3<br />c. The U.S. 51 8 43 46 21 25 3<br />d. Pakistan 16 2 13 81 32 49 3<br />e. Great Britain 39 7 32 53 28 24 9<br />f. Iran 50 18 32 45 25 20 6<br />g. Germany 58 17 42 34 21 14 8<br />h. India 71 29 42 22 14 7 7<br />i. Hamid Karzai 82 55 28 13 8 5 5<br />j. Al Qaeda and other<br /> foreign jihadis 8 3 5 86 19 67 6<br /></pre><br />The most popular entity here, after Hamid Karzai's 82 percent favorable rating, is India. And the most disliked, after the Taliban and Al Qaeda, is Pakistan.Boston Brahminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09264347464781848957noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6563932615264535811.post-28272666039655891122009-12-05T11:02:00.003-05:002009-12-05T11:13:14.323-05:00Problem avoidanceEx-CIA officer Graham Fuller wrote in the Huffington Post about why the United States should de-escalate in Afghanistan:<blockquote>India is the primary geopolitical threat to Pakistan, not Afghanistan. Pakistan must therefore always maintain Afghanistan as a friendly state. India furthermore is intent upon gaining a serious foothold in Afghanistan -- in the intelligence, economic and political arenas -- that chills Islamabad.</blockquote>(<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/graham-e-fuller/global-viewpoint-obamas-p_b_201355.html">Link to his May 10, 2009 article</a>).<br />This line may be straight out of General Kayani's diary. It accurately describes the perception in the leadership in Pakistan.<br /><br />Unfortunately, Fuller presents this "geopolitical threat" from India as an objective truth. As Shashi Tharoor said last month in an interview, Pakistan has nothing that India seeks.<br /><br />Fuller's article is also dishonest because it leaves out an obvious part of the equation: Pakistan's continuing support of Islamist militas as leverage against its neighbors. If, as Fuller suggests, America draws down its military footprint in Afghanistan, then the Taliban will come back with Pakistan's support, either overt or tacit. Afghanistan will return to the pre-9/11 clutches of the Taliban--- a hell-hole for ordinary Afghans, and where the 9/11 attacks were hatched.<br /><br />The problem with the knee-jerk anti-war movement is that is avoids the truth and seeks to bring us back into our shells. That's no way to engage with the world.Boston Brahminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09264347464781848957noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6563932615264535811.post-3029377475538952282009-12-03T09:31:00.002-05:002009-12-03T09:39:28.150-05:00A bankruptcy of logicOf all the people complaining about President Obama's Afghan war escalation, Tom Friedman takes the cake:<blockquote>Iraq was about "the war on terrorism." The Afghanistan invasion, for me, was about the "war on terrorists." To me, it was about getting bin Laden and depriving Al Qaeda of a sanctuary—- period. I never thought we could make Afghanistan into Norway-— and even if we did, it would not resonate beyond its borders the way Iraq might.<br /><br />To now make Afghanistan part of the "war on terrorism"—- i.e., another nation-building project-— is not crazy. It is just too expensive...<br /></blockquote>(<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/02/opinion/02friedman.html">Here is his Op-Ed in the New York Times</a>).<br /><br />So, let me get this straight: the war in Iraq, launched on false premises and so badly executed, was a necessary nation-building project? And the war in Afghanistan, being escalated by Obama precisely to help "get Bin Laden and depriving Al Qaeda of a sanctuary" is too expensive? This doesn't make any sense.<br /><br />I think I prefer the knee-jerk anti-war crowd to this kind of sophistry. At least the anti-war people are consistent.Boston Brahminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09264347464781848957noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6563932615264535811.post-82809598557901032822009-11-23T08:18:00.005-05:002009-11-23T08:40:49.952-05:00Now it's on HBO-- Terror in Mumbai<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.hbo.com/docs/img/programs/terrorinmumbai/506x316/506x316_terrorinmumbai02.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 506px; height: 316px;" src="http://www.hbo.com/docs/img/programs/terrorinmumbai/506x316/506x316_terrorinmumbai02.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br />Now that it is showing on HBO, with Fareed Zakaria presenting, maybe Dan Reed's documentary "Terror in Mumbai" will actually be seen. When it was first aired on Britain's Channel 4 this summer, no one in the United States seemed to know or care.<br /><br />For those who still don't know what "Terror in Mumbai" is: it is a brilliant, gripping documentary about the November 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai. In the words of director Dan Reed:<blockquote><br />Of all the material which I acquired in the course of making my documentary, Terror in Mumbai, it is the phone intercepts - recordings by Indian intelligence of mobile phone traffic between the young gunmen and their handlers back in Pakistan - which I found the most chilling.<br /><br />The close-up rustling, the tense silences, the gunshots, the amazement at the luxury of the five-star hotels which continued to amaze me every time I played back the recording during the edit. And above all the horrifying, dead-pan practicality of the preparations for taking the lives of innocents.</blockquote><br />(<a href="http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/articles/terror-in-mumbai">Link to his notes at Channel 4 web site</a>).<br /><br />HBO adds a presentation by Fareed Zakaria, who says,<blockquote>Much as the 9/11 attacks in the U.S. did in 2001, the events that unfolded last November in Mumbai served as a terrifying wake-up call, not just to India but to the rest of the world. It broadened the spectrum of our enemies and brought attention to the number of different terrorist groups that exist, who may be bigger and better organized than we ever imagined. The fact that a small group of gunmen was able to inflict so much pain, and the government of the second most populous nation on earth was unable to stop them for three days, should change our sense of the dangers out there.</blockquote><br />Here are<a href="http://www.hbo.com/apps/schedule/ScheduleServlet?ACTION_DETAIL=DETAIL&FOCUS_ID=704114"> the schedules for the HBO showings</a>. Happy Thanksgiving.Boston Brahminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09264347464781848957noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6563932615264535811.post-24330301295522534272009-11-20T08:16:00.002-05:002009-11-20T08:29:39.909-05:00The Headley AffairIndian newspapers have been abuzz for weeks about the arrest in Chicago of two men of Pakistani origin: David Coleman Headley (aka Daood Gilani), and Tahawwur Hussain Rana. These two stand accused by the FBI of a conspiracy to do violence against the editors of Jyllands-Posten, the newspaper in Denmark that published cartoons of Prophet Muhammad.<br /><br />It seems that both Headley and Rana had traveled multiple times to India, possibly to scout locations for terrorist attacks. So, India's new NIA wants to investigate them for links with Lashkar-e-Taiba.<br /><br />But the most explosive significance of their arrest is not mentioned in the unsealed complaint---not only is Headley accused of collaborating with Lashkar-e-Taiba, but that he worked closely with two ex-military officers in Pakistan; he regularly visited Pakistan, where he was born and attended school. A New York Times article yesterday said,<blockquote>The case is one of the first criminal cases in which the federal authorities seem to have directly linked terrorism suspects in the United States to a former Pakistani military officer, though they have long suspected connections between extremists and many members of the Pakistani military. Intelligence officials believe that some Pakistani military and intelligence officials even encourage terrorists to attack what they see as Pakistan’s enemies, including targets in India.</blockquote>(<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/19/world/asia/19mumbai.html">Link to NYT article</a>).<br /><br />This thing is what the Pakistan Inter-Services Public Relations (IPSR) typically calls "a sensitive matter", not to be discussed in polite company. The FBI, unlike the CIA or the U.S. military, is likely to follow the threads to their logical conclusions. The next few days should produce significant findings, especially if Headley is cooperating.Boston Brahminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09264347464781848957noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6563932615264535811.post-21704199110484999432009-11-04T07:57:00.003-05:002009-11-04T08:25:22.131-05:00In Deep DenialEven for Pakistan, the suicide bombing last week (Oct. 28) in Meena Bazaar in Peshawar was especially horrific. Mostly women and children were the target. They died in large numbers and are still being dug out.<br /><br />But more horrifying than the attacks themselves is the reaction of so many ordinary Pakistanis:<blockquote>Many Pakistanis said only foreigners were capable of such devastating attacks...<br /><br />"I'm telling you categorically -- the people behind this bomb are the Indians and Mossad," an oil trader, who has relatives in the United States and whose building was damaged, said.</blockquote>(<a href="http://www.upi.com/Top_News/International/2009/11/04/People-seek-reasons-for-Peshawar-bombing/UPI-72871257316028/">Link to UPI story</a>.)<br /><br />Where does this abiding suspicion of India come from? Perhaps from the 1971 war, in which India helped break up Pakistan, <a href="http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?262535">says commentator Khurram Hussein</a>.<br /><br />Meanwhile, the Pakistani Taliban attempted to deny responsibility for this bombing. (<a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6898221.ece">See full report in The Times of London</a>).Boston Brahminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09264347464781848957noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6563932615264535811.post-26721020014193125442009-10-08T10:01:00.005-04:002009-10-08T12:44:58.849-04:00Muridke and Quetta, tooThe House and the Senate both passed the multi-year bill on assistance to Pakistan. Aid to Pakistan has been continuing for many years now. What's different about this package is the strings attached to the money.<br /><br />The bills require "a certification by the Secretary of State" that Pakistan's government is (1) helping the United States to dismantle supplier networks for nuclear materials, (2) acting against terrorist groups within its borders, and (3) that the military is not interfering in governance.<br /><br />The third point is really the key: that the Pakistan military must keep its nose out of politics, leaving policy to the civilians.<br /><br />But wait, there's more! Take a look at the key provision (2) in more detail:<blockquote><br /> (A) ceasing support, including by any elements within the Pakistan military or its intelligence agency, to extremist and terrorist groups, particularly to any group that has conducted attacks against United States or coalition forces in Afghanistan, or against the territory or people of neighboring countries;<br /><br /> (B) preventing al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated terrorist groups, such as Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed, from operating in the territory of Pakistan, including carrying out cross-border attacks into neighboring countries, closing terrorist camps in the FATA, dismantling terrorist bases of operations in other parts of the country, including Quetta and Muridke, and taking action when provided with intelligence about high-level terrorist targets; and<br /><br /> (C) strengthening counterterrorism and anti-money laundering laws<br /></blockquote><br />Notice in (B) the mention of Quetta and Muridke. This is also new (and it wasn't in the original Kerry-Lugar Senate version). (<a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3642:">Link to H.R. 3642</a>).<br /><br />Quetta is the city in Balochistan where the Afghan Taliban leaders are based. So far, the US military has ignored Quetta, to Boston Brahmin's utter bewilderment. Adding that to the bill explicitly is a good thing for the US effort in Afghanistan.<br /><br />Muridke is the town near Lahore where the Lashkar-e-Taiba (or, technically, its civilian front organization) is based. The inclusion of Muridke is sure to make the Indians happy, and it is a acknowledgement that the Pakistan military has been making meaningless distinctions between good and bad terrorists.Boston Brahminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09264347464781848957noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6563932615264535811.post-75816792309525552952009-09-21T19:15:00.002-04:002009-09-21T19:29:37.512-04:00Stay out of AfghanistanGeneral McChrystal's assessment of the Afghanistan counterterrorism effort has an interesting paragraph on India's influence in that country:<blockquote>While Indian activities largely benefit the Afghan people, increasing Indian influence in Afghanistan is likely to exacerbate regional tensions and encourage Pakistani countermeasures in Afghanistan or India.</blockquote>(See full text of the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/21/AR2009092100110.html">unclassified version in the Washington Post</a>).<br /><br />So, let me get this straight: The Indians are helping the Afghans, which we all want to do, but this will exacerbate regional tensions.<br /><br />The only reason for exacerbating regional tensions, he says, is because the Pakistanis don't like Indians helping the Afghans. He warns that the Pakistanis will take "countermeasures" in Afghanistan and in India. Countermeasures like what, more state-sponsored terrorism? But I thought the Pakistanis were on our side, and any Pakistani support of the Haqqani terrorist network is only "reported" support from "some sections of the ISI". Tsk, tsk--- things get so complicated when you don't call a spade a spade. I thought generals were supposed to speak plainly. But the religion in Washington says that the Pakistanis are on our side, and evidently McChrystal doesn't want to touch that Shibboleth right now.<br /><br />I wonder what General McChrystal suggests should be done about this Indian "problem". To help save Afghanistan, should we be asking the Indians to get out and stay out? Inquiring minds want to know.Boston Brahminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09264347464781848957noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6563932615264535811.post-56540775346207832292009-08-17T14:56:00.003-04:002009-08-17T14:59:47.664-04:00Security starts with common senseAbout the incident at Newark where Shah Rukh Khan was questioned for a couple of hours (<a href="http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/15/questioning-a-bollywood-vip-named-khan">NYT Lede blog link</a>):<br /><br />As an American, here’s what bugs me about this incident: Security personnel interrogated the film star for nearly two hours before letting him make a phone call. During that time, our taxes were paying their salaries and they were <b>not</b> looking at hundreds of other passengers.<br /><br />Shah Rukh Khan is not just a VIP; he is probably better known than Tom Cruise to ethnic Indians. According to the Asian American Federation,<blockquote>Indian Americans were the largest Asian ethnic group in New Jersey in 2000, with 180,957 people, or more than one-third (34 percent) of the state’s Asian population.(<a href="http://aafny.com">aafny.com</a>)</blockquote><br /><br />Detaining him was obviously a waste of time. Any of dozens of passengers or staff at Newark airport could have told Security who he was. Our security databases and procedures are inadequate, and our personnel lack common sense and an awareness of their environment, which is the first principle of security.<br /><br />Is the TSA the agency that is responsible for this? I feel safer already, traveling in the U.S. under their watchful eye.Boston Brahminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09264347464781848957noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6563932615264535811.post-59122129127317333272009-07-22T23:20:00.003-04:002009-07-22T23:25:15.961-04:00The return of the right-wing conspiracyI thought Obama's press conference was very useful and tried to illuminate why health reform is urgent and what the main principles are in the bill that he wants.<br /><br />Then, I look at the coverage in the NYT and Washington Post---and almost every user comment in the first hundred or so is intensely negative and full of lies! What's going on? Clearly, the Republican FUD machine (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) is in full gear.<br /><br />Others have noticed this, too: see <a href="http://iamsoannoyed.com/?p=2299">I am so annoyed</a>.Boston Brahminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09264347464781848957noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6563932615264535811.post-3980670271900108682009-06-14T22:41:00.003-04:002009-06-14T22:52:56.186-04:00The Ice House Lincoln<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhutmK2DjSMEIPPMUbkXj02UpB3MtAIXaIlLKivvjjJmdY4l_8rT_lK-4aghYd71bvTCavBvOUYNoVXfyksWbITfNGqxPrvP19n1qR2BvOW29tbVboxjst9eyxJ05pakuZgyRKiPDlICOcg/s1600-h/icehousestamp.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 296px; height: 232px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhutmK2DjSMEIPPMUbkXj02UpB3MtAIXaIlLKivvjjJmdY4l_8rT_lK-4aghYd71bvTCavBvOUYNoVXfyksWbITfNGqxPrvP19n1qR2BvOW29tbVboxjst9eyxJ05pakuZgyRKiPDlICOcg/s320/icehousestamp.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5347381337221087426" /></a><br /><br />Readers might know that Fresh Pond in Cambridge, Mass., was once "harvested" for winter ice, which was shipped regularly to Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras in the 19th century. If you didn't know about this fascinating trade, or the crazy entrepreneur Frederic Tudor who started it, you can <a href="http://www.curledup.com/frozen.htm">read a review of "The Frozen-Water Trade" here</a>.<br /><br />But that trade is a gift that keeps on giving. Last Saturday a rare Lincoln stamp was sold for over four hundred thousand dollars. The stamp was on an envelope sent by a New England ice merchant to India:<blockquote>Markings on the envelope reveal that it traveled across the Atlantic, by train through Germany and Italy, by ship to Egypt and again from Suez to Bombay, and then by train across India.</blockquote><br /><br />(<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/15/us/15stamp.html">see article in today's NYT here</a>). Cheers.Boston Brahminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09264347464781848957noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6563932615264535811.post-65632581471892174502009-06-14T08:21:00.001-04:002009-06-14T08:22:58.525-04:00Composing plain text messages in fixed width fontsA pet peeve of mine:<br /><br />Many people don't know how easy and convenient it is to compose messages in plain text with a fixed-width font. Apparently, the people who wrote the google mail application don't, either. So, here are my reasons:<br /><br /> 1. Better keyboard feedback - each character I type moves the cursor ahead by a good amount, whether it's a narrow character like a comma or a wide character like a "w". You can type faster this way.<br /><br /> 2. Ability to quickly format a short table or list in the message without using the mouse. Not having to use the mouse helps you type faster.<br /><br /> 3. Plain text messages are easy for people on diverse mail systems to read exactly the way they are formatted, since they are usually presented with fixed width fonts.<br /><br /> 4. Plain text is a simple, elegant, and efficient way to communicate -- smallest size per content.<br /><br />It should be very easy to add this option to gmail. But when I had asked this question a few years ago by sending email to google help, I never got any replies or acknowledgement. Lack of this basic feature is the reason I don't use gmail as much as I otherwise would.<br /><br />Come on, Google Mail team. We're not asking for much.Boston Brahminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09264347464781848957noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6563932615264535811.post-53134254600660530502009-06-12T16:17:00.002-04:002009-06-12T16:33:48.186-04:00Rajeev Motwani, the EnablerRajeev Motwani died last Friday in a freak accident at his home, and Silicon Valley is now a poorer place. (<a href="http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/mercurynews/obituary.aspx?page=lifestory&pid=128158296">Article in the Mercury News</a>).<br /><br />Not just because he was a key investor in startups and helped found many dozens of them (<a href="http://startupsearch.org/investor/rajeev-motwani/">summary here</a>). I always knew he was a cool dude because of his original PageRank paper with Sergey Brin and Larry Page (<a href="http://ilpubs.stanford.edu:8090/422/">see paper</a>). PageRank was the technology at the heart of Google.<br /><br />But the outpouring of grief on the web is totally unlike anything I had expected to see. He appears to have touched many, many people. He had the knack of quickly getting to the crux of a problem and help his listener understand it. A few minutes of conversation with him has often changed people's lives. Google cofounder Sergey Brin puts it well:<blockquote>his legacy and personality live on in the students, projects, and companies he has touched. Today, whenever you use a piece of technology, there is a good chance a little bit of Rajeev Motwani is behind it.</blockquote><br /><br />(<a href="http://too.blogspot.com/2009/06/remembering-rajeev.html">Sergey Brin's full blog post is here</a>).Boston Brahminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09264347464781848957noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6563932615264535811.post-4467312174659051822009-04-20T22:14:00.005-04:002009-04-20T23:00:02.650-04:00A person can love it<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNtqPgPAXY9cz7J8lKDsdBwY1j2NazdW8UzKIbnMc_3oyhM9YMMseVT-uAAUiJfUrU4Gti7d2AcbCcMWacTSpfEUvkl-OVI9i3jSX5kJpjf6aiaml5pAvOMTk2oxkdrdcAb9BWjo_LPqq6/s1600-h/guys_dolls_poster_small.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 214px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNtqPgPAXY9cz7J8lKDsdBwY1j2NazdW8UzKIbnMc_3oyhM9YMMseVT-uAAUiJfUrU4Gti7d2AcbCcMWacTSpfEUvkl-OVI9i3jSX5kJpjf6aiaml5pAvOMTk2oxkdrdcAb9BWjo_LPqq6/s320/guys_dolls_poster_small.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5326968029667293234" /></a>Boston Brahmin saw the latest revival of Guys and Dolls on Broadway last weekend, and it was a matinee to remember. This is a classic, the quintessential Broadway musical about New York characters from a certain mythical age. The language and the music are thoroughly enjoyable. You don't need to know anything to follow the simple story and admire the professional production. The little Brahmins had a ball, too-- and as teenagers, they are not easy to please.<br /><br />A tale of two couples, Nathan Detroit, a fast-talking, down-on-his-luck gambler in 1930s New York, his anxious stripper fiancee Miss Adelaide, Sister Sarah Brown, a missionary trying to reform the city of sins, and her beau Sky Masterson, Guys and Dolls is based on characters from Damon Runyon's short stories. There have been many revivals of the original 1950 production. Nathan Detroit has been played over the years by luminaries Frank Sinatra and Nathan Lane; this latest version is played by Oliver Platt, who has big shoes to fill, and he does so. (<a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103295559">Hear Platt's interview today on NPR</a>)<br /><br />The New York Times reviewer called this Guys and Dolls "static" and "stiff" (<a href="http://theater2.nytimes.com/2009/03/02/theater/reviews/02guys.html">see review</a>). Well, he obviously didn't see the same show that I did. Trust me, you want to see this.Boston Brahminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09264347464781848957noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6563932615264535811.post-31356119327540292452009-03-15T23:17:00.003-04:002009-03-15T23:38:54.471-04:00The return of the lawyersYou heard it here first: Pakistan's president Asif Ali Zardari has agreed to reinstate the supreme court judge Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. This is good news and a very optimistic moment for Pakistan. Not only has Nawaz Sharif won his political confrontation with Zardari, but the country's lawyers, who have been agitating non-stop for many months, have succeeded in establishing the principle of an independent judiciary. The strengthening of its institutions is a step in the right direction for that unfortunate country and its people.<br /><br />The New York Times article quotes the special envoy Richard Holbrooke:<blockquote>the United States applauded “the statesmanlike act by President Zardari and hope that it will help defuse a dangerous confrontation so that Pakistan, with the help of its many friends, can address the nation’s pressing and urgent needs.”</blockquote> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/16/world/asia/16pstan.html">(link to article.)</a><br />Give me a break. This was no statesmanlike act. Even the most die-hard supporters of Zardari can see that the unpopular president was simply forced to give in to reality. Security forces in Punjab refused to carry out their orders against Sharif and his party. Even Zardari's own partymen began to desert him. Information minister Sherry Rehman resigned when TV networks were muzzled.<br /><br />Where does this leave the United States? Who cares. When did we last worry about Pakistan's "pressing and urgent needs"? Everybody knows that all we care about is its nuclear weapons and its Islamist radicals. After our history of consistently backing the wrong horse in Pakistan, helping to destroy its already crumbling institutions, and willingness to do the quick and dirty thing instead of what is right, we have lost all credibility with the Pakistani public, and deservedly so.<br /><br />Boston Brahmin hopes that a fresh beginning can now be made. If the people are willing to seize their democracy and make it their own, then there is hope for the future.Boston Brahminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09264347464781848957noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6563932615264535811.post-6725481863799618942009-02-23T11:15:00.002-05:002009-02-23T11:21:33.111-05:00Gathering dangersWhile the sorry state of the economy occupies us, we tend to lose sight of other gathering dangers. Pakistan's takeover by Islamist militants is now a distinct possibility. This would be a disaster unlike any other we've faced before. And it's entirely preventable.<br /><br />Here's a touching story about the shutting down of a girls' school by Taliban in Pakistan's Swat valley (<a href="http://video.nytimes.com/video/2009/02/22/world/asia/1194838044017/class-dismissed-in-swat-valley.html">15-minute video on the New York Times web site</a>).<br /><br />What is to be done? Here's a report in the Economist, suggesting why the Pakistan army is failing and what to do about it. (<a href="How Pakistan’s army is failing, and what America must do, to crack down on rampant Islamist insurgencies in the region">Link: In the face of chaos, Economist, Feb 19, 2009</a>). In particular, let's not start giving in to those who say that the war in Afghanistan is unwinnable. It must be our top foreign policy priority.Boston Brahminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09264347464781848957noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6563932615264535811.post-69121898231363689212009-02-02T13:41:00.004-05:002009-02-02T14:15:25.910-05:00Stop betting on the consumerThe U.S. consumer is saving more and spending less, says today's New York Times:<blockquote>Americans cut their spending for a sixth month in December and, perhaps more significant, put more into their savings accounts, the government reported Monday, as they worried about losing their jobs and earning less in a deteriorating economy. [...] "If households are shying away from spending, what’s going to cause businesses to start spending again?" a senior economist [at Moody's said].</blockquote> (<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/03/business/economy/03econ.html">See article in New York Times</a>)<br /><br />Well, Boston Brahmin is not an economist, but surely the fact that U.S. economic growth has been led by consumer spending in the past doesn't mean it needs to continue this way in the future? Now that we have discovered that Wall Street's unrealistic "growth" in the past decade was based on a Ponzi scheme, the great unwinding we're all living through is inevitable. Clearly, the rest of the economy is adjusting to the new realities, which include expensive credit.<br /><br />Given all of this, isn't the government's insistence on bailing out the big banks that made bad loans just <b>tilting at windmills,</b> and a tremendous waste of taxpayer money? It's trying to make credit easier to obtain, but the fundamental problem is not the lack of credit, but the lack of trust. It's no wonder that those banks that have already been bailed out in this way are just sitting on the capital, not lending. They have no rational incentive to lend given the poor visibility into future cash flows, just as consumers have no rational incentive to borrow when their jobs are in jeopardy. Why blame them?<br /><br />What the government needs to concentrate on is two things:<br /><br />1. Increase the safety net for people who are laid off. For example, COBRA benefits will be extended in a bill being worked on in Congress last weekend. At about $40 billion, this is money well spent.<br /><br />2. Stop the bleeding in home mortgages, which we are told is the root cause of the current losses. For example, the Obama administration says it favors giving bankrupt homeowners foreclosure relief by letting them have their mortgages modified under court protection. This won't cost the taxpayers a cent, and it will encourage lenders to rework the loans voluntarily.<br /><br />On top of the above, any spending that improves the infrastructure of the country should help. What will not help is trying to artificially get borrowers and lenders to act against their own best interests.Boston Brahminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09264347464781848957noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6563932615264535811.post-84456548293564058172009-01-26T13:44:00.005-05:002009-01-26T14:53:39.156-05:00Incentive to be obsoleteIf you have a television with an antenna that you use to watch broadcast American channels, then you know that on February 17th, all full-power TV stations in the United States will stop analog NTSC broadcasts, rendering your analog television set obsolete (<a href="https://www.dtv2009.gov/">See full info at the Commerce Department's web page</a>).<br /><br />This is not a tragedy. The government giveth what it taketh away. Many manufacturers sell digital converter boxes that can catch digital ATSC broadcasts (which the TV stations are already transmitting) and output a signal suitable for your TV. Since Congress mandated the switch to digital, it has tried to compensate consumers, by making available $40 coupons, maximum two per household, which you can use toward the purchase of such a box.<br /><br />So far, so good. Boston Brahmin does have an analog TV set, which gets used on occasion (for example, Barack Obama's presidential inauguration). Believing in being prepared, and not wanting my tax dollars to go to waste, I applied for one of these coupons. But I discovered a small and annoying hitch in the government's program.<br /><br />The government's coupons cannot just be used for any converter boxes:<blockquote>TV converter box models must meet technical and performance standards determined by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) in order to qualify for the Coupon Program.</blockquote>And the NTIA has decided that if your converter box provides even a single high-quality output suitable for high-definition (HD) televisions, for example, HDMI or component video connectors, then your entire box does not qualify for the coupon and you must pay full price.<br /><br />Their reasoning is understandable: Congress's program is targeted toward households that depend on their analog television sets to get important information over the air, and not toward consumers who have the money to shell out for an HDTV.<br /><br />Understandable, but not valid. They are ignoring the economics of how rational consumers should actually buy components of a system. Today, a converter box that can output HD signals is no more expensive to make than one that outputs only standard definition (SD) signals. In fact, they have the same underlying electronics. In order to become an "eligible" converter box, manufacturers have essentially disabled their boxes so that they cannot output HD signals. Ideally, given a choice, you should always buy an HD-capable box, because when you get an HDTV, you could start using your box's HD outputs and enjoy the better picture and sound. In a few years, when your television can be expected to go kaput, you would probably have to buy an HDTV, anyway, since even if there were any standard definition TV's to buy, they would probably not be any cheaper. <br /><br />Yet, because of this perverse incentive from the government, consumers are being forced to buy maimed technology that limits them to a standard definition picture, far into the future -- or waste lots of money, their own and the government's. Oh, well.<br /><br />By the way, I bought the Insignia NS-DXA1 box, retailing for $60, which is the same device as the Zenith DTT900 except for the logo. It has an excellent picture, sound, and on-screen menu. When I hooked it up to my old rabbit-ear antenna, it discovered well over a dozen Boston-area broadcast channels in all their digital perfection.Boston Brahminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09264347464781848957noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6563932615264535811.post-1566626686085896982009-01-23T23:59:00.008-05:002009-01-24T10:05:53.167-05:00You had me at HinduPresident Obama (it feels good to write those two words!) said in his inauguration speech:<blockquote>We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and non-believers.</blockquote>This line made Boston Brahmin's day.<br /><br />It's nice to be acknowledged by the president that I am American, too. I will never forget what then-Vice President George H.W. Bush said to a reporter in 1987: "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots." And I will never forgive.<br /><br />In India it's a common sentiment to respect all religions. Every <em>neta</em> worth his salt knows to sprinkle it in his speech. The first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru (1947-1964), was an agnostic. Even the right-wing BJP respects and celebrates the "Indian traditions of the Muslims, Christians and Parsis" (<a href="http://www.bjp.org/manifes/chap1.htm">link to their manifesto</a>).<br /><br />But the Land of the Free is far more conservative and backward in this respect than India, and many powerful people, particularly in the Republican party, still consider this a Christian nation. It is unprecedented for a Presidential inaugural address to include the words Hindu and non-believer. As both, Boston Brahmin has put up with a lot, including a "National Prayer Service" at the "National Cathedral."<br /><br />Given that God's Own Party (<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/01/AR2006040100004.html">see Kevin Phillips's article</a>) would count even worshipping Hindus as "non-believers", and therefore unpatriotic, I find it difficult to understand how any Hindus can ever support a Republican candidate in any election. But I know there are such people, proving that the world is full of mystery.<br /><br />Obama was speaking to all of us who don't follow any Middle-Eastern religion, acknowledging our American-ness. Whether he meant by "Hindu" a follower of Sanatana-Dharma, or just any South Asian generally, this is a great step forward. In any case, the guy walks the talk of a new inclusiveness. Congratulations, America! We're at last catching up to where India was sixty years ago.Boston Brahminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09264347464781848957noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6563932615264535811.post-14949157190973975782009-01-16T12:12:00.004-05:002009-01-16T12:28:55.746-05:00Slumdog hit the trifectaNPR's OnPoint with Tom Ashbrook today had an hour-long segment on Slumdog Millionaire. (<a href="http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2009/01/the-slumdog-phenomenon/">You can listen on their web page.</a>)<br /><br />There was a question whether Indian movies deal with the poverty and the realism in the same way. Somebody asked whether the Indian government will be upset about the police brutality. There have indeed been many Indian movies that showed poverty, police brutality, and the universal urge to get ahead. An example, in addition to Madhur Bhandarkar's Traffic Signal, was Govind Nihalani's Ardh Satya (1983). Commentators who claim that India does not produce such movies are simply wrong and are being unkind to Indian directors.<br /><br />But such movies have not done well at the box office in India, and I doubt that Slumdog will do well there, either. What makes money with Indians (and the Indian diaspora) is the dream-like melodrama with songs, hot dances, and a poor storyline.<br /><br />Slumdog hit the trifecta: it dealt with the hard subject matter as part of an uplifting story (Simon Beaufoy gets the credit here), it has excellent production values and a clear vision that can hook in Western audiences (Danny Boyle is primarily responsible for this), and it was backed by a Hollywood studio (both Warner and Fox Searchlight picked it up), which gave it the exposure.<br /><br />So now, it's showing on many more screens. Go see it. And even if the first few scenes are hard to take, just sit through them.Boston Brahminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09264347464781848957noreply@blogger.com2