Musharraf’s New Ordinance Hoopla

Re: # 197

tahmed,

.... it is nice to see that you share my contempt for romair and masadi - the two biggest fools born on god's earth ..... i knew we had something in common !

........ by the way, what happened in the big house at the start of the season ?

Re: # 195

tahmed,

...... you obviously don't know sheikh rashid - if the people of rawalpindi were hindoos they would make him a god and erect a mandir to him ........ instead they have to be content with painting his potrait on rickshaws and busses ....

sheikh rashid ki jai !

Re: # 193

romair mian (you can't hide behind bulleya),

..... i have absolutely no desire to 'fix' pakistan because i think it is not that 'broke' anyways (not yet)........ as long as i can spend my winters playing golf at the islamabad club and the local bootlegger is still in business, i am okay ..... the reason i don't like the mullahs is because they threaten my bootlegger, otherwise i have no problem if they blow themselves up in bannu or sleep with their boys in miran shah ......

..... and why do i have to fix it when sheikh rashid is doing it for me?...... i believe in adam smith and the division of labor ..... i don't mow my yard or paint my house myself - that is why god made mexicans and romanians ....... and by that i don't mean that sheikh rashid is a mexican - he is a professional politician and a damn good one .......

.... i would also advise you to stick to your knitting instead of trying to be a fool of all trades and embarassing us in front of hindoos like arjun ......

hamidm: asma jehangir I can understand as being a true inspiration and muslim in the land of the gang rapists, tin horn generals, bearded politicians and street thugs. but what is the deal with this sheikh rashid? who the hell is he (other than being a railway minister with a big mouth) and what has he done to be mentioned in the same breath as asma jehangir?

bulleye #193 writes passion without conviction is hypocrisy...

Thus speaketh the sage...gibberish, but sounding profound.

An achievement one would expect from no one other than the Exalted God of Connections!!

hamidm2 mian: ........i think the point, under question, is that why aren't you (and urstruly) in pakistan, pushing your agenda with the same passion as you (two) regularly do on this site........

why wait for others to fix pakistan, so you can retire there.......why not fix it, yourself, so others can retire there.......

passion without conviction is hypocrisy......

Re: # 191

borivili,

........ uh? what the heck are you talking about ?.... asma jehangir and sheikh rashid ARE leading the flock ..... if anything, i am part of the flock and more than happy to be led by them ......

.... sheikh rashid is my leader (as is asma jehangir) and they don't need my help - imran khan does, and i send him quite a bit of money every year even though he is fool when it comes to politics .......

Hamidm your a sick man, u tell the islamists to go lead their flock but your own flock for those whom u cheer from the US like asma jahangir and sheikh rashid u belive they dont need ur aid

ur a stinking two faced hypocrite

Re: # 189

borivili,

.......i don't have a 'squad' that needs to be led ..... if i do have a squad, then sheikh rashid is doing a fine job of leading it .... and if not him, there is musharraf, mushahid hussain, benazir, aitizaz ahsan, yasser latif hamdani and many others who will do a fine job ..... they don't need my help like those who are living in caves waiting for gabriel ...

Hamidm why dont u lead ur squad from the frontline why do u cheer on from the US?

Good night everyone, later!

Zeemax mian, if cadres are chosen by the people's movements from the CVI, the CVI will get rid of the people's movements, look at the Iranian example.

Regarding ideology, you all should read Karl Mannheim's "Ideology and Utopia"- let me excerpt some of what Mills wrote about it in his "Letter to the New Left"


C. Wright Mills, Letter to the New Left (for entire text do your google searches)

----

Quote; "It is no exaggeration to say that since the end of World War II in Britain and the United States smug conservatives, tired liberals and disillusioned radicals have carried on a very wearied discourse in which issues are blurred and potential debate muted; the sickness of complacency has prevailed, the bi-partisan banality flourished. There is no need — after your book — to explain again why all this has come about among “people in general” in the NATO countries; but it may be worthwhile to examine one style of cultural work that is in effect an intellectual celebration of apathy.

Many intellectual fashions, of course, do just that; they stand in the way of a release of the imagination — about the cold war, the Soviet bloc, the politics of peace, about any new beginnings at home and abroad. But the fashion I have in mind is the weariness of many NATO intellectuals with what they call “ideology,” and their proclamations of “the end of ideology.” So far as I know, this began in the mid-fifties, mainly in intellectual circles more or less associated with the Congress of Cultural Freedom and the magazine Encounter. Reports on the Milan Conference of 1955 heralded it; since then, many cultural gossips have taken it up as a posture and an unexamined slogan. Does it amount to anything?

Its common disposition is not liberalism as a political philosophy, but the liberal rhetoric become formal and sophisticated and used as an uncriticised weapon with which to attack Marxism. In the approved style, various of the elements of this rhetoric appear simply as snobbish assumptions. Its sophistication is one of tone rather than of ideas; in it, the New Yorker style of reportage has become politically triumphant. The disclosure of fact — set forth in a bright-faced or in a dead-pan manner — is the rule. The facts are duly weighed, carefully balanced, always hedged. Their power to outrage, their power to truly enlighten in a political way; their power to aid decision, even their power to clarify some situation — all that is blunted or destroyed.

So reasoning collapses into reasonableness. By the more naïve and snobbish celebrants of complacency, arguments and facts of a displeasing kind are simply ignored; by the more knowing, they are duly recognised, but they are neither connected with one another not related to any general view. Acknowledged in a scattered way, they are never put together: to do so is to risk being called, curiously enough, “one-sided.”

This refusal to relate isolate facts and fragmentary comment with the changing institutions of society makes it impossible to understand the structural realities which these facts might reveal; the longer-run trends of which they might be tokens. In brief, fact and idea are isolated, so the real questions are not even raised, analysis of the meanings of fact not even begun.

Practitioners of the no-more-ideology school do of course smuggle in general ideas under the guise of reportage, by intellectual gossip, and by their selection of the notions they handle. Ultimately, the-end-of-ideology is based upon a disillusionment with any real commitment to socialism in any recognisable form. That is the only “ideology” that has really ended for these writers. But with its ending, all ideology, they think, has ended. That ideology they talk about; their own ideological assumptions, they do not.

Underneath this style of observation and comment there is the assumption that in the West there are not more real issues or even problems of great seriousness. The mixed economy plus the welfare state plus prosperity — that is the formula. US capitalism will continue to be workable, the welfare state will continue along the road to ever greater justice. In the meantime, things everywhere are very complex, let us not be careless, there are great risks.

This posture — one of “false consciousness” if there ever was one — stands in the way, I think, of considering with any chances of success what may be happening in the world.

First and above all, it foes rest upon a simple provincialism. If the phrase “the end of ideology” has any meaning at all, it pertains to self-selected circles of intellectuals in the richer countries. It is in fact merely their own self-image. The total population of these countries is a fraction of mankind; the period during which such a posture has been assumed is very short indeed. To speak in such terms of much of Latin America, Africa, Asia, the Soviet bloc is merely ludicrous. Anyone who stands in front of audiences — intellectual or mass — in any of these places and talks in such terms will be shrugged off (if the audience is polite) or laughed at out loud (if the audience is more candid and knowledgeable). The end-of-ideology is a slogan of complacency, circulating among the prematurely middle-aged, centred in the present, and in the rich Western societies. In the final analysis, it also rests upon a disbelief in the shaping by men of their own futures — as history and as biography. It is a consensus of a few provincials about their own immediate and provincial situation.

Second, the end-of-ideology is of course itself an ideology — a fragmentary one, to be sure, and perhaps more a mood. The end-of-ideology is in reality the ideology of an ending; the ending of political reflection itself as a public fact. It is a weary know-it-all justification — by tone of voice rather than by explicit argument — of the cultural and political default of the NATO intellectuals....The end-of-ideology is on the way out because it stands for the refusal to work out an explicit political philosophy. And alert men everywhere today do feel the need of such a philosophy. What we should do is to continue directly to confront this need. In doing so, it may be useful to keep in mind that to have a working political philosophy means to have a philosophy that enables you to work. And for that, at least four kinds of work are needed, each of them at once intellectual and political.

In these terms, think — for a moment longer — of the end-of-ideology:

(1) It is a kindergarten fact that any political reflection that is of possible public significance is ideological: in its terms, policies, institutions, men of power are criticised or approved. In this respect, the end-of-ideology stands negatively, for the attempt to withdraw oneself and one’s work from political relevance; positively, it is an ideology of political complacency which seems the only way now open for many writers to acquiesce in or to justify the status quo.

(2) So far as orienting theories of society and of history are concerned, the end-of-ideology stands for, and presumably stands upon, a fetishism of empiricism: more academically, upon a pretentious methodology used to state trivialities about unimportant social areas; more empirically, upon a naïve journalistic empiricism — which I have already characterised above — and upon a cultural gossip in which “answers” to the vital and pivotal issues are merely assumed. This political bias masquerades as epistemological excellence, and there are no orienting theories.

(3) So far as the historic agency of change is concerned, the end-of-ideology stands upon the identification of such agencies with going institutions; perhaps upon their piecemeal reform, but never upon the search for agencies that might be used or that might themselves make for a structural change of society. The problem of agency is never posed as a problem to solve, as our problem. Instead there is talk of the need to be pragmatic, flexible, open. Surely all this has already been adequately dealt with: such a view makes sense politically only if the blind drift of human affairs is in general beneficent.

(4) So far as political and human ideals are concerned, the end-of-ideology stands for a denial of their relevance — except as abstract icons. Merely to hold such ideals seriously is in this view “utopian.” (end quote)

Re: # 184 - correcto and I won't be surprised if Mulana Urstruly turns out to be Lord Nazir !!!!

Re: # 184

Save it for yourself manhoos munh. At least we don't cheer the mass murder of 8, 10 and 12th grader school girls committed by you people.

Re: # 183

urstruly and zeemax,

....... you two are like a bunch of jackals who cheer on the hyenas from the safety of the sidelines in michiganistan and londonistan ..... why don't you join your cave dwelling brothers instead of tooling around in a burgundy mercedes slk and collecting welfare checks in flint ?........ out of respect for the month of ritual starvation, i won't say any more ...... munafiqoon !

Re: # 181

urdupoint.com have published photos of crash. It surprises me to see the mess that theres is that how the major testicls would have survived the crash.