Following Egypt II

On Saturday, I had the pleasure of visiting my former Spanish professor at his home just outside of the gates of my undergrad.  Without question, he was my favorite professor during my four years.  He pushed me to be the best I could be both in his classes and in school altogether.  He still thinks that I should have considered pursuing a Ph.D in Spanish or Latin American literature, and he has been trying to convince me to return to the GOP since I was a college sophomore (no haps Doc).

Our conversation drifted to what was happening in Egypt.  And we were both saying that we just didn't know enough about the roots of the unrest to gauge what will happen when the dust settles and the smoke clears.  He did, however, discuss what he saw that reminded him of the Cuban Revolution (he is a Cuban exile), in terms of the youth factor within the unrest.  But I reminded him that it appears that many within the Egyptian middle classes seemed to be in this as well, and he agreed that that was a real difference.  Again, we agreed that we just couldn't put our fingers on what's happening.

We moved then to a discussion of democracy, and our attempts to sell it the world over.  To my complete surprise, my very conservative professor and I agreed almost completely that democracy as we experience it is not necessarily the best system of government for everyone on the planet.  I pushed the point further by saying that I felt that our country has lied to people with regard to the calls for democracy, in that if the democratic outcomes differ from what our government wants, then we punish those for exercising democracy.  Again, to my surprise, my professor agreed.  I stated that we need to be honest about what we, as a country, want when we call for democracy.  Why didn't we tell the Palestinians, for example, that if they voted for the wrong party, then we wouldn't support them.  Instead, I felt like we sold them a bill of goods.  It would be akin to a country telling us that we need to exercise our democratic duties, but they really want us to vote for Republicans, for example.  But when we vote for Democrats, that country would begin to threaten us with sanctions and such.

I've written all of this to say that I think that the Obama administration is doing exactly what it needs to do with regard to Egypt, namely very little, in terms of pushing that government one way or another.  And that my very conservative favorite former professor and I agree on this issue.  Frankly, I also agree with James Zogby, in that we, as Americans, particularly our media, don't know enough about all of the players in Egypt to do anything more than watch and wait. 

Following Egypt

I've been trying to cobble together information that will help me better understand what is happening in Egypt, and I think that like many people who are remotely interested, I've turned to Al Jazeera for information that is, at the very least, closer to the ground than anything I would find in the normal news sources I rely on.  And with the recent banishment of Al Jazeera from covering what is happening in Egypt, I am thinking that they were getting too much information out to the world, from the perspective of the current Egyptian government. 

I've found this timeline to be particularly helpful.

Though I am not Egyptian, I can feel that something monumental is happening there, even though I am not sure what it portends.  I definitely will continue to follow what is happening over there, and try to put into perspective the things that official Washington will say about this (I am sure that this is more than a simple choice between Muslims we like, and Muslims we don't like, but our media will make it out that way the first chance they get).

UPDATE:  I found this interesting tidbit on Al Jazeera on wired.com.

Sometimes Justice Really is Blind

Two current stories have reminded me of how our country has different tracks for justice when it comes to wrong doing.  The first is the story about the mother in Ohio who sent her children to schools in a district outside of where they were supposed to be.  Apparently, there are laws in Ohio that disallow that type of activity.  Eventually, the mom was caught, I assume that children were removed from that school district, and the mom was convicted and sentenced for her crimes.  In spite of aspects of this story that I didn't know (it never occurred to me that a child couldn't go to a different school if there is a legitimate address that can be used; I thought athletes did this sort of thing all over the country), if there were violations identified and crimes committed, then justice was served.

Then there is the story of Massey Energy, the company that owned the West Virginia mine (Upper Big Branch) that exploded last year.  I wrote two blog posts (here and here) about that situation, making sure to note the massive number of violations incurred by the company that, I believe, led to the explosion.  I've now just read that Massey has been sold to a larger energy company, and that it will likely avoid having to deal with the violations specific to Massey.  The new company will absorb those costs, and the shareholders of Massey will likely make a healthy profit from the sale.  Meanwhile, 29 families have been changed forever, and the company responsible for that horrific change won't even suffer for those violations, more than 3,000 of them.

I just feel like these two stories are indicative of what happens all too often in the U.S.  Someone trying to do better for his/her family runs afoul of the law, and justice is served.  Profitable company runs afoul of the law, and justice never has a chance to be considered, because of a deal somewhere that ensures that those with the most at stake, regardless of the violations, will be able to keep the maximum profits.

Deep down, I know that it doesn't break down that simplistically, but it is tiresome seeing the same pattern appear time and again.

Will Being Gay in Uganda Lead to Execution or Imprisonment? XI

I was very sad to hear that a leader of the Ugandan gay rights community, David Kato, has been murdered.  Apparently, he'd begun to receive death threats after a Ugandan publication published his name, photograph and address indentifying him as gay.

International Questions

I have a friend who lives in Marseilles, France that I chat with on occasion about international issues.  I've always found it fascinating to talk with folks from other countries about their perspectives on American and international politics.  I think the last conversation we had dealt with the movie "Wild Reeds" and Algeria's historical relationship with France.  So when I heard about the upheavals in both Tunisia and Egypt, I thought that it might be a good time to converse with him again, because I am sure that the European press is covering the events there much more thoroughly than the American press.

The fact that I am only vaguely aware of some of the potential issues that have sparked these demonstrations and revolts shows, to me anyway, that I am too often focused only on issues dealing with my country's internal politics.  Tunisia and Egypt are in the midst of real political tumult.  How will that affect our relationships with those countries?  How will American interests shift as the dust settles?  Are the underlying circumstances in these countries similar to those that sparked Iran?

Being too insular is never a good thing.

An Underwhelming SOTU Night

I love the pomp and circumstance surrounding the State of the Union address (SOTU), and it's great to see our leaders all gathered in one place to hear the President speak.  But I have to admit that tonight, I was thoroughly underwhelmed.  As I listened to President Obama, I kept thinking that little to nothing of note will get done with the GOP controlling one house of Congress.  The "repeal" of health insurance reform in the House, I think, is going to be the broken record of the next two years.  The only thing important to the GOP is trying to erase the legislative victories of President Obama, with the exception of tax cuts (and they will not give him credit there either).

I have come to the conclusion that almost everyone in the top echelons of our government, regardless of party, are not concerned about regular people like me.  They are not concerned about the actual well being of the broad swath of the American public.  Almost everything is tailored toward those at the top of the income scale, and most of the demonization (outside of that directed at the President) is directed to the least among us (the so called, lazy, worthless, freeloading, "my tax dollar" stealing portion of our populace).  Few ever look at where the real benefits go (upward), and those who do ignore it.

But I digress.  Listening to Rep. Paul Ryan was like listening to a series of tiresome GOP platitudes (lower taxes, limited government) strung together in a melancholy tone that made former President Carter's "malaise speech" seem uplifting.  And Rep. Michele Bachmann's presentation...well, there were no surprises there at all. So, it was an underwhelming night.  With all honesty, I can say that I haven't the slightest idea of what we can expect in the coming year, but I doubt that real progress for the majority of us, the regular folks, will not be among those expectations.

"The King's [History]," and Why It's Always Important to Separate Fact from Fiction

I absolutely enjoyed "The King's Speech."  I thought the acting was superb, and the screenplay was was one that emphasized the power of friendship and the ability to overcome a substantial obstacle.  Those are great themes for a film to display for its audience.  But I knew from the moment I sat my anglophilic self down in that theatre seat that I was watching fiction.  What I didn't know, because I didn't study that era of British history, as closely as I have studied the same era in American history, was the real story surrounding the King and his Prime Ministers as war loomed.

Coming to my rescue, and before I broke out my own books, is Christopher Hitchens.  Hitchens article on the history covering what happened with the Prime Ministers Chamberlain and Churchill was, for lack of a better term, delicious reading.  Hitchens reminds me of why I am always skeptical of historical movies, even those that I think are really great ("Glory" comes to mind).  I know that I am there to be entertained, not necessarily taught.  What Hitchens does for all of us who aren't as familiar with the actual history is to give a corrective to the film.  All historical movies should be so lucky to have such a wonderful critique (as well as members of Congress).

And I am still rooting for Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush, and of course Helena Bonham Carter (I adore her) for the Academy Awards, though I think only Firth will prevail.