Pants on Fire

President Musharraf has accused the United States of duplicity in urging him to take off his uniform at a time when Hillary Clinton is boasting that she wears an asbestos pants suit. “The U.S. wants to strip me of my clothing while allowing its citizens the latest fashions. It’s a typical example of Western hypocrisy”, Musharraf complained. General Musharraf also hinted darkly that Pakistan may have to develop its own asbestos pantsuit program if the West will not share the technology.
This setback occurred just as Assistant Secretary of State John Negroponte has wrapped up a productive visit to Pakistan, where he worked out a compromise in which Musharraf agreed to change into a cricket uniform as long as Benazir Bhutto would wear her girls’ field hockey kit, and allow Musharraf to spank her. In a phone conversation, a State Department spokesman suggested that Mrs. Clinton was interfering “in an unproductive way” in a tense situation. “This throws all of our delicate negotiations with President Musharraf into a cocked hat”, said the spokesman. “Musharraf was already pretty envious because he heard that Rudy Giuliani looked good in a dress.” Later, the spokesman called back and asked to take back the reference to a “cocked hat”.
An analyst for the Brookings Institution explained that the sudden mention of an asbestos pantsuit may have put Mr. Musharraf in a difficult position with his own military, who have been pestering him to obtain new uniforms so they can look nice while beating up pro-democracy lawyers. “The security forces feel that we ought to reward them for not catching Osama Bin Laden until after the 2008 elections. Meanwhile, we keep fobbing them off with advanced fighters and surface-to-air missiles.” The analyst went on to say that Musharraf’s threat to develop his own pantsuit line was, in all likelihood, purely for domestic consumption. “They’re bluffing on that one. He just has to placate his generals.” A technical source at the Pentagon agreed that Pakistan is years away from developing sophisticated clothing. “They don’t even have the patterns for culottes,” the source reported.
Returning from an extended Texas vacation and on his way to a long weekend at Camp David, President Bush seemed to be growing impatient with Pakistan’s prolonged difficulties. Asked if there was a “sartorial crisis”, the President replied that everything was fine in Sartoria, but Pakistan was a mess. “President Musharraf needs to take off his uniform,” the President repeated. “If he’s worried about what to wear, he can just wrap himself in the flag. That’s what I do.”

Saving Reagan's Rep

Recently, conservatives have mounted a spirited defense of Ronald Reagan in the New York Times op-ed , against the charge that his visit to Philadelphia, Mississippi was a form of coded racial statement. Both David Babbling and Lewis Cannon have been so interesting on the subject that Pan Zen Zero has decided to conduct an imaginary interview with them as a sort of thought experiment.
PAN ZEN ZERO: Both of you have defended Ronald Reagan for starting his presidential campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi by saying that it was due to disorganization and indiscipline in his campaign. Can either of you elaborate?
DAVID BABBLING: Right. The whole thing was an unfortunate mix-up. Reagan was against it before he was for it. Or for it before he was against it. Either way.
LEWIS CANNON: In fact, I uncovered evidence that Reagan actually thought he was going to the real Philadelphia. You know-- the one in Pennsylvania.
PZZ: Oh, yes?
LC: Yes, for sure. The whole time, Reagan kept asking when he could get to visit the Betsy Ross House. When Nancy broke the news to him that he was in Mississippi, he just sat down and quietly leafed through his collection of Bonzo stills.
PZZ: But there is evidence that the campaign was invited there, in order to soak up some support from former Wallace voters.
LC: Well, he was the great communicator, not the great geographer. He didn’t expect to find many Wallace voters in Pennsylvania, but he was a trouper and he went anyway.
DB: So you see, planning to speak about states rights where he thought he was going really was an act of political courage. Or would have been, if …
LC: And the core of my argument is, all the liberals claim that this was some sort of masterstroke. Why they think appealing to Wallace voters by talking up states’ rights on ground zero of the resistance to black voting rights was a masterstroke beats me. Ron was really embarrassed by the whole thing. It was almost as big a fiasco as Dukakis in the tank.
DB: Which gets to another of my points in his favor, that Michael Dukakis went there eight years later. That’s a vindication if ever I heard one!
PZZ: But Reagan went there to boost states’ rights. Dukakis spoke about civil rights!
DB. Yes, but Reagan didn’t make a strident appeal to racism, only a low-key appeal. For example, he deliberately spoke at the state fair and avoided making his speech from the top of the dam where the murdered civil rights workers were buried. In fact, he was so low-key that the crowd didn’t even react.
PZZ: Yes, why do you think Reagan’s speech fell flat there?
DB: I don’t think the crowd could understand him because of his accent. After all, he was from Illinois. Then, too, he wasn’t at all like Wallace in his delivery, no “Hooo-ey” or “Goddamamightydam’s”, so they didn’t know how to take it. But the liberal press got it, all right. They ran right for the phones to crucify poor Ron with their agitprop.
PZZ: So you don’t think “states’ rights” in that context was a coded message?
DB: There are no “coded messages”. Hemingway said so. It’s all part of this vast liberal conspiracy theory about Republicans.
LC: Right. See, when conservatives hear “welfare queens”, they immediately think of white people. It’s only those dirty-minded liberals who get the wrong idea. So paranoid! It’s the Stalinist legacy, probably.
PZZ: What about Willie Horton?
DB: Wait a minute, that was a completely different Republican, George H.W. Bush!
PZZ: Well…
LC: And again, no conservatives even dreamed he was a black guy until they saw the pictures. Especially in the South, the idea of a governor letting a black guy go free was so off the radar, they just assumed: “White Guy”.
PZZ: What about “macacca”?
DB: Now, there you go again! Once more, different Republican.
PZZ: Yes, but we’re talking now about how Republicans use racial stereotypes to scare the voters and stir them up. What about that sneak attack on John McCain, the “black love child” smear?
DB: Doesn’t count. Republican on Republican. Why should liberals care? Only if they’re deep into all these wild conspiracy theories, I’ll bet.
PZZ: OK, then; back to Reagan. So this wasn’t a racial message?
DB. Right. Ronald Reagan didn’t have a racist bone in his body. He might have been a little callous at times, that’s all.
LC: And the proof that he wasn’t a racist is that he wasn’t homophobic or anti-Semitic. Plus, one time he was nice to some black guys.
PZZ: Back up a minute. How does not being homophobic or anti-Semitic add up to being non-racist?
LC: well, the three go hand in hand. At least in the Republicans I know.
PZZ: But there are some Jewish Republicans.
DB: and African American Republicans, too.
LC. Yeah, go figure.
PZZ: OK, so Ronald Reagan wasn’t personally a racist. But he was a lifelong opponent of civil rights legislation, wasn’t he?
DB: Not in communist countries. Only here at home.
LC: And again, only for the noblest reasons. He thought that since it was southern whites who had robbed African-Americans of their voting rights, it was only fair for southern whites to give them back. It wouldn’t mean as much, coming from the federal government. That was Ron—always the personal touch!
PZZ: So why did he oppose a Martin Luther King holiday?
DB: Reagan was afraid we were getting too much like the French – a holiday, here, a holiday there, big powerful unions, pretty soon no one is doing any work, just committing adultery and smoking cigarettes all day while beefing about the government. And again, he was vindicated in the long run. Look how Sarkozy wants to imitate the United States now.
LC: Here, I can see you’re still not convinced. I’ll offer you one more proof that Reagan was not a racist. It’s a known fact that he never had one of those minstrel-faced lawn jockeys all through the fifties when they were so popular.
DB: Really? Even I didn’t realize that. It’s a key fact; it should be more widely known.
LC: It’s a scandal how the liberal press keeps down the important stuff.
PZZ: Well, thanks, you two, for getting this all on the record.
DB: This has been fun and productive. Let’s get together again real soon and set the record straight on what happened to all those weapons of mass destruction.

The naked emperor strikes back

In a move designed to signal some possibility of a compromise with Mrs. Bhutto’s demand that he remove all his clothes and appear in public naked, President Musharraf has told Assistant Secretary of State John Negroponte that he “may appear “ without his uniform much later on, but not before he has arranged for a tummy tuck. In a letter to Negroponte leaked by sources within Mr. Musharraf’s inner circle, Musharraf states that the main reason he has refused to disrobe before now has been that he is self-conscious about his appearance in a bathing suit. “Since that is the case,” the document goes on to explain, “just think how much more uncomfortable the President would be to appear entirely unclothed, as Mrs. Bhutto is demanding.” The document remains vague about any timetable, but estimates that the earliest Mr. Musharraf could agree to appear in public naked would depend on his ability to schedule the required cosmetic work, plus additional time for the swelling to go down and an unspecified period devoted to “working on his abs.”
Opposition parties have been outspoken in their rejection of the suggested procedure, characterizing it as nothing more than a bid to stall for time. “We cannot just wait around for Musharraf to develop a six-pack,” Mrs. Bhutto insisted in a speech to supporters. “Believe me, even with a subscription to Bally’s he’ll never be another Schwarzenegger.” Mullah Abdullah Nasrullah of the Baluchistan Revolutionary Front, or BaRF, was unusually scathing in his response. “Just wait and see,” Nasrullah sneered. “Next he will say he needs to wear his new wing-tips because the ground in Pakistan is so stony. Then he will say he needs supp-hose because of the varicose veins in his legs. Before long, he’ll be right back in a three-piece suit, complete with matching tie and suspenders!” And suspicions in Pakistan have not been helped by the rumor that Mr. Negroponte presented the President with a ten million dollar gift certificate to Jos.A.Bank.

Help for the Second Amendment

The Second Amendment to the Constitution has long puzzled legal authorities and ordinary citizens alike, owing to its peculiar sentence structure and the difficulty in interpreting its first, dependent, clause. This difficulty has caused a great deal of anxiety and name-calling between those who emphasize the “well-regulated militia” part of the amendment, and those who uphold the “right of the people” portion. Since no one really denies the right of the people to have some sort of firearm handy, but everyone gets confused over the meaning of a well-regulated force of amateur soldiers hallooing around with guns, it seems that it’s the first clause that will have to go. I herewith offer, in a spirit of patriotism and civic concern, three annotated suggestions for a replacement of the Second Amendment‘s opening clause that all of us can live with.
Suggestion Number One: “All the deer in the woods being a big nuisance, and even if they are not, it being a hoot to go out there and blast away at them, etc.”
This revision covers most cases of owning small arms, and may even extend to machine guns, rocket launchers and dynamite, as one can “blast” in many ways. If anyone can show that deer are not actually a “big nuisance” (hardly likely as long as there are gardeners), then the “hoot” clause provides coverage. The case of deer possibly going extinct is neatly covered by the “they are not “ wording. An objection may be raised that weapons activity seems to be limited only to “the woods”, but this is negated by the open-endedness of “out there”, which may be taken to include fields, streams, parking lots, shopping malls and church suppers, among other possible venues.
Suggestion Number Two: “The ability of any citizen to settle disputes in a manly way being central to a Judaeo-Christian society somewhat influenced by Hellenism and tempered by admiration for Roman virtue”, etc.
While this version might seem to be quite restrictive, in reality it balances an exhilarating permissiveness with sober responsibility. Anyone might get into a dispute, so anyone ought to be able to keep and bear. But on the other side, only “citizens” really get to do it, which effectively disarms illegal aliens and even legal aliens, for that matter, as well as felons and children. In rural communities and inner cities where nine-year-olds often carry guns, their rights can be protected simply by allowing them to vote. Female citizens need not be put off by the use of “manly” as it does not exclude them from owning weapons but merely characterizes the use of them as typically male behavior, something most women already believe to be true. Atheists and Muslims may take exception to “Judaeo-Christian”, but so what? They are always taking exception to something. Finally, the inclusion of Hellenism and Roman virtue opens the door to legalized assisted suicide, which might even bring the atheists back on board.
Suggestion Number Three: “It being a statistical probability approaching certainty that from time to time the executive branch may go bonkers, and that some of us will have to set them straight, etc”.
This third example is my personal favorite, as it gets nearer to the “original intent” of the founders concerning the Second Amendment as they wrote it. Additionally, it honors their effort to construct a document sufficiently vague as to be useful in any era. As a famous jurist has put it, “I cannot define ‘bonkers’, but I know it when I see it”. And each generation will certainly work out for itself not only the meaning of “bonkers” but also “set them straight”, not to mention “some of us”. But it’s the beauty of a written constitution that come what may, the ability to lock and load, just in case, remains inviolate in this version.
I am aware that in proposing three separate revisions, I may be open to the complaint that each one is only a partial solution. Rest assured that I have no objection to combining all three of them into one long, flowing clause if that is the only way to get the job done. Really, the larger the rationale, the more secure the safeguard. Plus it will generate a lot more business for lawyers just to figure out where to put the semi-colons. As a final note, I can imagine some doubters wondering how we will get along without the “well-regulated militia” part. To them I can only say, that’s what the National Guard is for. Isn’t it?

Bhutto Escalates Her Demands

Benazir Bhutto, in a move her allies describe as striking a blow for democracy in Pakistan, has escalated her demands on President Musharraf. Before, Ms. Bhutto said, “it was sufficient that President Musharraf merely took off his uniform. Now he must undress completely.” News of the new demand comes immediately after Mrs. Bhutto’s stated refusal to serve underneath Musharraf. “I want to be on top once in a while,” said Mrs. Bhutto. She did not elaborate further, but a spokesman for her party, speaking on background, offered some additional analysis. “People have been saying for the longest time now that the emperor has no clothes. If President Musharraf begins to go around naked, then political reality and popular perception will come back into line, and we will at least respect him for his honesty”. This spokesman rejected several proposed compromise ideas, such as the one by Mr. Musharraf’s proctologist that it would be OK for the president just to strip to his shorts. “He has to go all the way this time. No political strip-tease for once“. The spokesman declined to speculate, however, on whether Musharraf’s bushy head of hair was in fact a large toupee.
In the U.S., The Bush administration appeared to be taken by surprise by Mrs. Bhutto’s new position, and an apparent gap seems to have opened up between the State Department and the President. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice has issued a statement that “under no circumstances do I ever want to see President Musharraf without his clothes on. Preferably, all of them”. Asked to clarify her remarks, Ms. Rice merely added, “Ick”. President Bush, however, seemed more open to the proposal. Speaking to reporters as he left for a long vacation at his ranch in Texas, the president stated, “I’ve already seen him that way in the White House locker room. Heck, Dick [Cheney] and I even snapped towels at his saggy butt.”