Originally Posted By woody >>No, by tightening up local election laws and procedures so it never gets to them.<< But the problem is really the State Court in this case. The State Court ignored the discretion of the local election boards and made new law. That's how the Supreme Court got involved.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 It really shouldn't even have gotten to the state court. Nor should a statewide official (in this case, Katherine Harris) be allowed to be the co-chairman of one or the other campaigns - that has conflict of interest written all over it and is the sort of thing that should be changed for the future.
Originally Posted By DAR There was a previous comment that however flawed our election system still works best. Then some questioned whether it was the best. Then more rebuttals that yes it does work. And in the grand scheme of things I think we can all admit we'd rather go through another Florida deal than what happened yesterday.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom Apparently Benazir Bhutto doubted she would be killed. I was at the gym yesterday and saw a TV interview that Benazir Bhutto did with Time magazine ? within the past few months. She said that she was aware of the some people wanted to kill here but was quoted as saying that "any honest Muslim would not kill me because no honest Muslim would kill a woman". Apparently it is completely against the Muslim religion to kill a woman or a child. Also she as living in aslym in Dubai for 8 years. Clearly there are moderate Muslim countries that are working with those who are against terrorist, Dubai being one of those countries. Not surprisingly today the news is reporting that it was terrorist who killed her.
Originally Posted By DAR <<"any honest Muslim would not kill me because no honest Muslim would kill a woman". Apparently it is completely against the Muslim religion to kill a woman or a child>> I guess then for the last forty years Al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah forgot to send out that memo.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Where does Benazir Bhutto fit in with all of this?> You're right, she doesn't. I have to remember that things about poking and trolls... Anyway, back OT, I'm actually kind of worried about this. Musharref has an even tighter tightrope to walk now, and I'm not sure if he's up to it. I'm hoping Bhutto's followers will not be provoked to widespread violence, as they're about the most moderate organized group in the country, and the inevitable tit-for-tat reprisals would just come back harder, risking long-term chaos.
Originally Posted By woody You call that an analysis. Musharraf has gone through much worse, like his own assasination attempts that are much more numerous to count. He will be able to weather this latest crisis. The Bhutto family has gone through many assassinations. This isn't any different.
Originally Posted By woody Here's a summary of the family political dynasties. Where one died, another will rise. <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071228/india_nm/india311433" target="_blank">http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/200 71228/india_nm/india311433</a> NEW DELHI (Reuters) - Benazir Bhutto only entered politics after her father was executed by the military. On Thursday she was assassinated, a depressingly predictable end for a member of one of South Asia's seemingly cursed political dynasties. ADVERTISEMENT Powerful families from the Bhuttos of Pakistan to the Gandhis of India and the Bandaranaike family of Sri Lanka have dominated politics in this diverse and polyglot region since independence from Britain. ... The murders have ironically helped sustain those dynasties the assassins tried to destroy, propelling sometimes reluctant heirs into the limelight, giving them both a powerful sense of a legacy to be fulfilled and a wave of sympathy on which to ride.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <You call that an analysis> No, I called it thoughts I had in the immediate aftermath of this event. But thanks for the snarkiness. Actually, I hope you're right about things calming down. But I think if we're honest, we'd say that none of us really has anything more than an armchair pundit's knowledge of internal Pakistani politics and any guesses of what the future holds there would be just that - guesses.
Originally Posted By woody Yea, I'm glad I've confronted your poor analysis comprising of nice thoughts and hopes that are not based on reality. And I didn't say "I hope" things are "calming down". I said Musharraf will deal with it. Yeah, YOU are guessing and hoping about Pakistani politics. I'm just trying to stay out of it.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Yea, I'm glad I've confronted your poor analysis comprising of nice thoughts and hopes that are not based on reality.> Again, it wasn't an analysis. Look "analysis" up in the dictionary - it may help you. Let's review: what I said was: "Musharref has an even tighter tightrope to walk now, and I'm not sure if he's up to it." This event has angered millions of Pakistanis, making Musharref's job tougher than before the assassination. He was already walking a tightrope with martial law and the upcoming elections before this even happened. That's not an analysis, that's pretty much "Pakistan 101" and I don't claim anything more for it. Maybe he IS up to the job - note that I didn't say he wasn't, only that I admitted I didn't know (which, if you were honest, you would too). Then I said: "I'm hoping Bhutto's followers will not be provoked to widespread violence," and aren't you? "as they're about the most moderate organized group in the country," which they are, "and the inevitable tit-for-tat reprisals would just come back harder, risking long-term chaos." which they would. If Bhutto's supporters strike against either Musharref supporters or Al Qaeda supporters, neither of those groups would have any qualms about striking back. If, as has been the case so far, they sort of strike out more aimlessly, rioting and setting things on fire but not aiming it at a particular group, things might calm down after a time. <And I didn't say "I hope" things are "calming down". I said Musharraf will deal with it.> That statement is so generic as to be meaningless. Sure, he'll deal with it. But that's like saying "Bush will deal with Iraq" or a future president Hillary will "deal with the economy." Well, duh. Of course they'll "deal" with it. The question is HOW and how well. <Yeah, YOU are guessing and hoping about Pakistani politics. I'm just trying to stay out of it.> Actually, you make a more concrete prediction than I do when you say "He (Musharref) will be able to weather this latest crisis." I admit there's plenty I don't know about internal Pakistani politics because that's honest. You exhibit typical hubris though.
Originally Posted By woody The restating of fact is part of the analysis. Definition of analysis - close examination: the examination of something in detail in order to understand it better or draw conclusions from it You did it again with that detailed response. You already concluded that violence is likely since you "hope" violence won't happen. And Musharref's job is tougher, which is another conclusion based on facts. I say Musharref will weather this crisis because Musharref is more likely to stay around than be ousted. That is not hubris.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <The restating of fact is part of the analysis. Definition of analysis - close examination: the examination of something in detail in order to understand it better or draw conclusions from it You did it again with that detailed response.> What I analyzed was our discussion. The original post, though, was not that, and was much more modest than that. <You already concluded that violence is likely since you "hope" violence won't happen.> Violence has already happened, if you've paid attention. What I said was I hoped it wouldn't become widespread. <And Musharref's job is tougher, which is another conclusion based on facts.> That was the one part of the post that could be called analysis, but again, since he was already in a tough spot before the assassination, it didn't take any sort of genius analysis to say that - it was kind of axiomatic, and that's all I'd claim for it. <I say Musharref will weather this crisis because Musharref is more likely to stay around than be ousted. That is not hubris.> It would be hubris to claim you know what will happen, which is how your original post on this came off. I'm willing to accept that it was just a prediction stated in tones of sureness.
Originally Posted By woody >>What I analyzed was our discussion. The original post, though, was not that, and was much more modest than that.<< Still an analysis.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 I think she knew the minute she returned to Pakistan that she would be assasinated. IMO, she purposely got herself killed so she could become a martyr.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>What I analyzed was our discussion. The original post, though, was not that, and was much more modest than that.<< <Still an analysis.> But what you claimed was that my original statements were that. They weren't.
