Politics and Poetry: The Peace Keepers

Happy hump day all - as I perused the cacophony of news stories this morning, I began tracing a red thread through all of the military, police and other various "peace keeping" and "law enforcing" headlines. And now, I will share them with you. Enjoy...

"The ultimate authority must always rest with the individual's own reason and critical analysis."

- Dalai Lama

The Cradle Will Rock: Egypt smells a bit like South America, and it's not just the summer heat rolling in. There is widespread contention over who won the seat of the first democratically elected president in Egypt, and the military is stepping up to settle it...well not settle, really just dictatorially mandate. Mohammed Mursi, the candidate from the Muslim Brotherhood, claims to have won 52% of votes while Mubaraks former aide, Ahmed Shafiq accuses the Brotherhood of "organized and persistent election fraud," further declaring his victory in the election runoff. Now, this might not sound like Chile or Argentina yet, but try this on for size: The Supreme Constitutional Court (aka a collection of Mubarak appointees and military muscle) dissolved both house of parliament last week, which are controlled by the Brotherhood and other Islamist groups. The junta (hmmm...seen that word before) then announced a new "interim" constitution that gives generals the ultimate seat of power, basically making any official or unofficial winner a frivolous figurehead. According to this new constitution, generals now have the power to pass laws, control the budget, declare war and steer the drafting of a permanent constitution. 

Now, the issue here is a little sticky. Unlike Chile, for example, neither the Brotherhood nor the ex-Mubarak monkey are attractive choices. The people were deflated about these two before the military stepped up their game. However, the question is this: do you allow someone like the Brotherhood to gain control of the presidency and both houses, thus feeding fear that Egypt will devolve into an Islamist state, or go the military route? In effect, the military staged a coup, usurping the rights of the people and declaring their choices, whatever they may be, a wash. 

Many feel that based on Egyptian activism in the past few years, even if the Brotherhood had gained control of the whole country, laws and customs that would push bitterly won progress back wouldn't fly with such an engaged populace anyway. 

Verdict? My take is that military rule is never a good thing. As one protestor bittersweetly remarked last year, "Military has no problem taking power - but can they let it go?" 

That remains to be seen, but doesn't look promising. 

I may sound naively romantic, but a true government by the people, of the people and for the people is the best - a true republic, where peoples wants and needs are reflected in the decisions of the rulers, not by a military, not by a corporation, by the people. 

Eyes are on you, Egypt. 

 

Speaking of Chile: For those of you who are unfamiliar with the Chilean coup, I strongly recommend Naomi Klein's book, The Shock Doctrine. I won't get into detail now, but long story short. On September 11, 1973 (yes, 9/11), the CIA helped back a terrorist coup of the prosperous and democratic nation of Chile based on economic dissatisfaction with their government. Now, 40 years later, they are still struggling. Last week, Chilean lawmakers were happy to announce a victory over the military that has ruled the country since the 70s. Their victory: repealing the "copper law," that guaranteed the military 10% of the annual income from the nation's copper mines. Instead, the Congress will set the military budget every 4 years. Sounds great...but according to Andres Velasco in La Tercera, it's not as rosy as it looks. Every other aspect of Chilean government is funded yearly. So, let's say another earthquake hits and it's another two years before you can meddle in the military budget. Education, health care and pensions would be slashed before military funding in order to finance rescue and reconstruction...yikes. Furthermore, the new law guarantees that defense spending be no lower than 70% of what it's been for the past 6 years, when copper prices were sky-rocketing and the military was richer than Trump. As Velasco chillingly writes, "Cutting social spending while keeping the military flush is exactly what Pinochet did." Pinochet, the CIA appointed dictator post-coup is casting a lasting shadow on the people of Chile. Like many seeming victories, the vast corruption of this disjointed government overwhelms the small triumphs...unfortunately, the whole damn thing needs an overhaul. 

This side/That side: Well, just in case you were still holding on to any mushy feelings about our two party system, here's a good one for you: Virginia took steps to research the growing flooding problem in the state by funding a study that would investigate causes and possible prevention. However, lawmakers had to omit any reference to "climate change" and "sea-level rise" in order to be granted the funding. Scientists, in and outside of the study say that sea levels along the coast of Virginia have risen more than a foot, and continue to rise. While Republicans agree that flooding is a rapidly growing issue, they refused to allow such terms as "sea-level rise" because it is....drum roll please...

"a left-wing term." 

Well oh my - some would say, hey, be happy they're at least looking into the problem. Well, that's not really true is it? Let's say they find that the cause of flooding is due in large part to global warming...but oh shit, they can't say that. So instead, they'll say - build an ark, God is mad, buy another Hummer and Go America! 

You can't solve a problem if you don't look at the god damn problem to begin with.

 

Literally undercovers: British minster of policing, Nick Herbert, said last week that undercover police trying to infiltrate, for example, animal-rights or anti-globalization groups have every right to have sex with group members in order to protect their cover. This announcement is met with widespread dissatisfaction and disgust after 8 women lodged a legal action against the Met (Metropolitan police) claiming that they had been "duped into forming long-term loving relationships" with undercover cops. The women feel violated, claiming that they would obviously never have slept with an undercover cop - one woman actually had a child with a policeman who just fucked off as soon as his stint was over.  Herbert's response to the suggestion of banning undercover sex was that such rigid rules would out undercover agents. Barbara Ellen, a writer for The Observer, offered this response. "I'm sure activists don't deliver ultimatums: 'Shag or we'll think you're from the filth.'" Now, maybe they will. 

I take this stance. Is everyone you've had sex with exactly who you think they are? Are facades not a part of our inherent mating ritual? I don't know anyone who is their absolute true self on a first date - I mean come on. Sex can just be sex - it doesn't have to turned into a "long-term loving relationship." Police should not lead them on to the point of having kids or picking out curtains, but let's be honest here: people lead other people on all the time. 

The only thing I would say is wear a rubber and don't promise her the world. 

And ladies, don't get all gushy with a guy who only seems interested in the secret hiding place of those Hummer bombs. 

Don’t Call Me Baby

Twisted glass and broken beams
This smoke don’t taste like steam
Let the sirens mock your lies
And please don’t call me baby

Lookin’ down on a Tuesday night
Eyes tear that face the sky
I know that it ain’t alright
And please don’t call me baby

Thinkin’ were they afraid to fly
Jump up to close my eyes
But this is far too real to hide
And please don’t call me baby
No, please don’t call me baby

I’m not the one to save
My innocence has caved!

City’s quiet as a grave
I ain’t seen you smile in days
And you don’t know just what to say
But please don’t call me baby
Please don’t call me baby

It’s sick and it’s true
Hell’s written all over you
Rip Tide tears my mind
This ain’t no lullaby
I won’t be sleeping tight
Wide awake on this endless night
A new day reaps what’s sewn
Ain’t how you dreamt it but now
I’m grown

Twisted truth and broken dreams
That seat’s as empty as it seems
I feel your eyes now let me see
And please don’t call me baby
Please don’t call me baby

Politics and Poetry: Around the world

A weekend sampler platter from around the world - mind the sassy American fare and the Russian herring - could be cause for indigestion.

Rose Garden Rogue Reporter: Obama announced new immigration laws yesterday that would allow illegal immigrants who entered into the US as children, to stay as long as they meet certain criteria. Many conservatives, and well, Americans in general, are rolling their eyes at this election year "hand out." One such man is Neil Munro, a conservative blogger for the site the Daily Caller. Wearing a temporary press badge, he interrupted Obama while he spoke, asking: "What about American workers who are unemployed while you employ foreigners?" Obama didn't appreciate the interruption and made it blatantly clear, chastising the reporter before ignoring the question and waiting till the end of his statements to respond, saying how much these young immigrants contribute to our country, from building businesses to serving in the military. Once he answered that question, he quickly turned his back and walked away, taking no further questions.
Now, Munro claims that it was certainly not his intention to interrupt the President, that he was merely trying to get a question in at the last moment, knowing how seldom Obama takes questions at these events. He also, however, told CNN: "I have to ask the questions that you all won't."
Now that, I agree with. No one is asking questions here, at least not ones that matter. In a way, Munro's question is kind of a non-starter as well. Here's one I'd like to ask: "What happens if/when this law is overturned by subsequent administrations, as is often the case?" or "Why has it taken this long to come up with something you feel is so obvious - why now, in election year?"
I'd wager a bullshit response for both, but if a question is going to be aired to the nation, those are more valid, I think. Munro's question is a clearly aimed torpedo at the left with "fuck you, from the right" painted on the side. It's more of the same left/right banter and hectoring that always happens in an election year, a 8 or 9 month pissing contest that ends like a bad prom night: broken promises, faded dreams and a lingering hangover.
I'm with Munro on wanting to ask questions regardless of whether the President is ready for them or not. Propriety be damned. This nation needs more action and less pomp and circumstance.

Just a red herring: US intelligence (wait, don't stop reading yet) believes that Russia has deployed a ship with weapons and troops en route to Syria. According to who's who, the ship has been sent to protect Russia's naval base as the situation in Syria continues to plummet into utter disaster and mayhem. The worry is that Russia has other plans for the troops and weapons once in Syria. This news comes after flying fur between Secretary of State Clinton and Russian officials over Russia shipping attack helicopters to the fascist regime. Russia claims that the helicopters are not new and are simply part of an outstanding contract between Syria and Russia. The director of the Institute for Democracy and Cooperation in New York, a Kremlin-backed, non-governmental organization (which means a government backed, non-government backed organization) argues that Russia is opposed to sending troops to Syria, understanding that it would prompt other countries into responding with force, something Russia doesn't want to get in the middle of. Never a dull moment, eh? Here's my problem with this - the two issues are not mutually exclusive. Let's say you send the troops to protect that base, vital to Middle Eastern operations for Russia. OK - let's say that Syria takes that as a threat, or even if they don't, introducing large weapons and troops into that kind of situation doesn't speak of tea parties and sit down conversations. If and when the base is attacked by Syrian forces, Russian forces with fight back. And then, there you have it. They weren't meant to start shit in Syria, but oops, that gun I have just kind of did what it was meant to and here we are now - civil war turned outright international war. Now, I'm not a big fan of our ambiguously spineless stance on Syria but I don't want 18 year olds sent to Syria when they should be at home interrupting Obama in the Rose Garden. The UN has already pulled its observers, there to check on Kofi Annan's peace plan (sorry, but that was a joke from the start). Children are being used as human shields, doctors killed for aiding the wounded. If you're going to show force, show force. Don't send in UN observers, and don't tease a rabid animal with 'protecting your naval base.' Do something or don't. Half assing it does no one any favors, least of all, the dying civilians on the inside.

A mile in our shoes: Egypt will vote this weekend between "the lesser of two evils," a Mubarak man or an Islamist brother. It seems that their democracy is faltering before it has a chance to stand - somewhat like ours, only that ours is crumbling from a self made pedestal. Either way, the lesser of two evils argument is a well known one. Many Egyptians feel that they're back at square one, in fighting and disillusionment rampant as the imminent hand over of military to civilian rule draws nearer. The fear is that the military will not relinquish power, thus forcing a violent end to the attempted democratic proceedings. As polling began Saturday, a third option arose that seemed quite the popular choice: boycott. Still, Egyptians are showing up to vote, one man explaining his choice as "the best of the worst."
Another issue is that polling takes place with no parliament or constitution in place, just the military. The new president has no clear cut role or description, only that he will answer to the military leaders until a constitution is drafted and parliament elected, two things that have no set deadline as of now.
Unrest simmers, but the streets remained relatively quiet in comparison to a year ago. I, for one, hope that unrest doesn't fizzle into apathetic acceptance. Though both our nations can relate to choosing between two steaming piles, at least they seem to be concerned about that predicament.


Democratia

I won’t go where you are leading

Your two faces are deceiving. 

Whip me, beat me with your faith.

Freedom tastes of chains and death.

Bottom line’s your holy scroll

Greed soaked tyrants find a home

Liberty, justice take the stage

Figure heads in your crusade.

Schizophrenic hypocrites

How dare you kill in our name

Democratically insane

We all lose while you few gain

Here we go

Follow me...follow me...follow me

Divide et impera

Democratia fide est

God Bless America

Defend Freedom

Divide et impera

Democratia fide est

Land of the free?

In keeping with American tradition, I am going to completely ignore the current events in the Ivory Coast, the overthrow of Gbagbo, the nearly thousands of dead civilians - burned and tortured, and the waves of protests and underground mutterings regarding French involvement and the future reign of Ouattara.
Why?
Because they don't have oil and their religious feud is far less interesting than the quagmire that is the Middle East.
So, let's talk about the Middle East, a subject that never gets dull due to the constant train of broken promises, dead soldiers, dollars and cents.
First of all, the 2010 deadline has clearly already passed to bring troops out of Iraq and now it looks as though this year might not reach that glorious milestone either. Excuse me while I feign surprise. I was highly suspicious of that bullshit laden speech as soon as it wafted out from Obama's mouth. Now that he's building his re-election campaign however, he'll have to come up with something good to avoid the glaring truth that he furthered an unpopular war and has not stood by his promise to end it....umm...I suggest the good old fashioned "It's our safety at stake here. We're preventing terrorist attacks."
Meanwhile, in Syria, a country that until recently seemed immune to the "Arab Spring," is now entering into the cyclone of public disapproval and mass protests. Rallies keep escalating as the death toll of civilians killed by the government surpasses 100 people. What critics say is making President Bashar al-Assad (successor to his father, Hafez) really nervous is that the epicenter of these protests is in Daraa, a highly conservative town, as opposed to towns such as Hama or Aleppo, where the banned Muslim Brotherhood has a slew of supporters. Needless to say, it's only a matter of time before the dominoes really start crashing. The interesting thing, once again, is the eerie parallels between Syria and our own city upon a hill. While their chants call for freedom and democracy, the economy is the real source of their outrage. The agricultural regions of the South have been battered by a drought while the entire country suffers from shitty money management. Unemployment for young citizens is a huge issue, most young graduates with advanced degrees do menial work such as drive taxis. There's also much grievance with corruption in the upper echelons of society, particularly targeting Assad's cousin, Rami Makhlouf, a tycoon infamous for pocketing government kickbacks.
Hmmmmmm...sounds so familiar....wait, don't tell me...holy shit! It's like us! Ha, small world huh?
Here's where it actually starts to differ - the President has in fact begun to make some concessions towards the will of the people: he has released jailed protesters, fired his entire cabinet and tossed out the publicly loathed governor of Daraa, Faysal Kalthum. He's still on thin ice but clearly realizes that he is not immune to the power of public opinion. It's not quite clear if Syria is on track to completely overhaul their government or if reform is enough to quiet the uprisings. We wait with bated breath...
Meanwhile, in Yemen, the US is now putting pressure on President Saleh to step down. It's been a tricky call for us, considering that Saleh has been a main player in fighting the Yemeni branch of Al Qaida. We waited while his supporters fired on unarmed demonstrators in the streets, hoping that it would all just go away like a bad dream and we could go back to playing puppet master in the sand box of the Middle East. Unfortunately, no play time on the horizon. Protests continue to escalate so we now have made public our reluctant suggestion for Saleh to cede power to a deputy, while simultaneously keeping his relatives in charge of counterterrorism...ummmm..OK. I think the point is to just oust the whole fucking house of cards, dick sticks, but by all means, place your agenda at the forefront and move your pawns accordingly. The "little people" of Yemen are not too pleased by the US's eventual commentary. Tawakul Karman, a leader of the anti-government youth movement said, "We are really very, very angry...We feel that we have been betrayed." Well done US. Your diplomacy is about as effective as a doggy door in an elephant cage.
Onwards to Libya where Qaddafi toys with the idea of escape, but only if he receives full immunity, something NATO forces are not completely tossing out. If they can get Qaddafi the hell out of there and try to begin the rebuilding process, NATO feels that it might be the only way to save lives. Meanwhile NATO has quieted their guns due to the confusion brought on by a recent bombing of Qaddafi's tanks, which had been overtaken and were then manned by the rebels...oops. So, the rebels are pissed b/c they're not getting much back up anymore and NATO is pissed b/c they don't know who the fuck is who and don't want to guess, risking the lives of not just soldiers but hundreds of civilians.
And, by the by, who are we really fighting for? I'm all for democracy and peace, but something has to fill the vacuum, and I'm guessing it won't be hippies with flowers in their hair and love in their hearts. While rulers like Qaddafi and Mubarak were cruel dictators by trade, they knew how to keep a lid on extremists, at least to a point...kinda like Hussein. Yeah, remember him? The truth of the matter is that although extremist groups like Al Qaida are not widely popular in countries like Egypt or Libya, the turmoil is perfect for their kind of rhetoric. Get rid of the Western leaning secular swine and replace him with an Islamist ruler. It really doesn't sound far fetched - particularly when you consider that there have been mutterings of Al Qaida involvement with the rebels in Libya, even by NATO's commander, U.S. Adm. James Stavridis.
It's kind of like the Tea Party here - it's not that the overwhelming majority of Americans agree with their extremist views, it's just that they are the loudest and they jumped into action at the perfect time - grabbing key support and raising their bullshit agenda above the seemingly lost sheep of the rest of the country. Something similar may be happening in Libya, particularly when you consider out track record in the Middle East is an easy target for new recruits. You don't have to travel far to find a bomb or gun shell with our name on it.
So, in the end, maybe we should've at least done a little more research before we sent our monster planes over to save the day. But, as Bush and friends will tell you, planning takes time - time we don't have b/c the terrorists are after us...ooooo - don't look now but the Boogie Man outside is holding a Quran.
Bottom line: you save more lives with intelligent diplomacy than you do with air raids. It just makes for less exciting television.

Fast Blast: News 2.10.11

From fashion and art to dictators, school boys and whales, it's a helluva day around the world.

Mubarak hangs on: Egyptian president Mubarak gave a speech this evening in front of a packed Tahrir square, surprising his constituents and the world by proclaiming that he wasn't going to step down. The crowds had already been cheering and celebrating all day in preparation for the official word. Needless to say, they were disappointed and angry. Mubarak announced that he will be handing over certain powers to Vice President Omar Suleiman. This didn't do much to quench the anger in the masses. Suleiman is a military man, head of intelligence gathering and widely regarded as a heartless extension of Mubarak.Major opposition leader, Mohamed ElBardei warned that things will rapidly turn violent if Mubarak does not step down. "Egypt will explode," he tweeted. After Mubarak's speech, crowds chanted "Get out, Get out!" The latest development reports masses of more than 1,000 encircling the presidential palace where heavy security guards the building and others nearby. This will be a long night.

The soldier's side: Reports show that for the second year in a row, the US military has lost more soldiers to suicide than in the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Last year, over 468 troops committed suicide. If everyone bitches so much about supporting the troops, shouldn't we support them enough to bring them home and pay for adequate physical and mental healthcare...? Nah, that's not as fun as moving little green men around on a board.

A billion pounds of flesh: House Appropriations Committe Chairman Hal Rogers announced today that he intends to cut $100bn from Obama's budget this year. "Our intent is to make deep but manageable cuts in nearly every area of government, leaving no stone unturned and allowing no agency or program to be held sacred," Some Democrats feel, like Rep. Schumer, that the Republicans are "blindly swinging a meat ax to the budget when they should be using a smart, sharp scalpel." He said that they need to pay special attention to what areas of government spending will benefit job growth and the economy and what areas won't, as opposed to just throwing a blanket over the whole thing and slicing $100bn. However, it seems that even some of Rogers' co-workers are unsure of exactly what's being cut: "We will make $100 billion in discretionary cuts while making common sense exceptions for our troops and veterans. " House Appropriations Committee Communications Director Hing said (that by the way, is the most made up job ever). Ummmm...oh right, that's a bullshit patriotic way of saying you won't cut military funding, but everything else, from schools to health care to jobs and public works will be bent over the House podium and royally raped - while you have that image in your head, imagine Obama's speech to corporate America the other day where he vowed to try and slash corporate taxes to make free trade easier. You're welcome America.

Saving the whales: Thanks to less pollution and international bans on whaling, whales have returned to the waters of New York Harbor, just beyond the Verrazano-Narrows bridge which connects Staten Island to Brooklyn. An estimated 50 fin whales now live in the area. Guess that campaign really did work...save the whales!

School boy bomber: A man dressed in a school boy uniform blew himself up, along with Pakistani troops at an army training camp in Northwest Pakistan this morning. There seems to be some discrepency as to the age and identity of the suicide bomber: army and police claim it was a teenager in a school uniform, the Pakistani taliban said it was a soldier on the base who had volunteered, and Reuters claims it was a boy as young as 12. This comes as a sharp reminder of the strong Al-Qaida and Taliban operations along the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, despite years of attacks against the groups. Not to beat a dead horse, or a dead ideology, but at what point did we decide that we could conquer what essentially is an entire continent deeply rooted in faith - with nothing more than firepower and arrogance? It was all about Bush in his flight jacket on the aircraft carrier wasn't it? Congrats USA - no mission accomplished, missing a conscience.

The fashionable apple: Mercedes Benz fashion week kicks off today in the Big Apple with BCBG stealing the show in throwback 70s style on Auschwitz survivor thin models...I dunno, seems a little retro for my taste.

Art Walk: If you live in LA, check out the Art Walk downtown. In the center of the city (Spring-Broadway between 3rd and 8th), galleries will showcase their pride and joy along with live music, alcohol and free swag like condoms and fashion magazines.

"If you want something, do something."

Well, I'm all moved in to my new apartment, and as expected, my time off from the blog was aptly marked by a shit storm of activity from around the world.
As I listened to NPR on the way to work yesterday, a reporter spoke to one of the protesters in Tahrir square, the epicenter of Egyptian protests in Cairo. The simple fact that this reporter ventured out into the throng is quite impressive. The last few days, the mob has turned on journalists, mugging and beating them. Some experts say they have found evidence that links these incidents to the Interior Ministry of Egypt, an attempt to silence the news of spreading dissent.
Despite this, the NPR reporter seemed to have found a relatively quiet corner where two men sat, breaking from the intense protests of the past week. In broken English, marked by a tired yet defiant air, one of the men said simply, "if you want something, do something."
What a concept.
Egypt is the focus of most international media at the moment, while President Mubarak stands his ground amidst the perfect storm. With Tunisia as a clear catalyst for the Egyptian protests, many other countries in the Middle East brace themselves and eye their constituents with cautious distrust. King Abdullah II of Jordan fired his entire cabinet in a pre-emptive attack against public uprising. The tension in the air is tangible.
Tunisia may be the catalyst but Egypt has been stewing in a pot ripe for revolution for quite some time. Mubarak has been president of Egypt for 30 years, and in that time, little political reform has forged ahead. Regardless of the name, Egypt is in practice, a dictatorship. Corruption from the top to the bottom rungs of government is apparent. With it's explosive population increase, Egypt has been suffering from widespread poverty and high unemployment for years.
Through repressive methods, Mubarak has been able to stifle much of the social and fundamentalist Islamic groups, calling for his resignation. No longer. His main nemesis in that category, the Islamic Brotherhood, is now stepping up as main orchestrator's of protests and demands for his removal.
Yesterday, Egyptian authorities announced a meeting with key members of the Muslim Brotherhood in a thinly veiled attempt, many critics believe, to get them off the streets where they continue to sew seeds of revolution. This makes us pretty damn nervous as well. The Muslim Brotherhood is no friend to the US. On their global website (globalmbreport.org), they remark on comments made a prominent Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood spokesman who said that if President Mubarak is replaced, a referendum will be held to decide the fate of the 1979 peace treat with Israel...awkward for us...here's why.
Egypt is a strong ally in our war on terror, not to mention their continued support, allowing passage through their air space as well as the Suez canal, a critical route to both Afghanistan and Iraq. They've also been instrumental in army training, giving us land to efficiently practice desert combat on...not that that seems to have helped much, but it's the thought that counts.
Then there's the economic factor. Another reporter commented on the cans of tear gas left in the streets, all with the arrogantly proud stamp "Made in the USA." The fighter jets flying over head, manufactured in the US. According to Business Week (businessweek.com), the military ties began during the "1979 Israeli-Egyptian peace agreement and has grown to $1.3 billion in assistance that includes weapons sales, training and joint missions."
That's a lot of dollars and cents in the hands of the fed up masses, particularly when the fed up masses may soon be looking to the Muslim Brotherhood for answers.
The US has a strict policy against negotiations with the Muslim Brotherhood, but what if they end up being custodians of Egypt's government? Again...awkward for us...

So, what do we do? Side with them without really siding with them.
The Senate unanimously (holy shit, they can agree on something!) signed off on a resolution to "immediately begin an orderly and peaceful transition to a democratic political system, including the transfer of power to an inclusive interim caretaker government, in coordination with leaders from Egypt's opposition, civil society, and military, to enact the necessary reforms to hold free, fair, and internationally credible elections this year."
Ummmmm....what?
Clearly the Senate didn't get the memo that the opposition includes the previously oppressed fundamentalist factions who hate us more than fat kids hate fat camp. We're not just dealing with freedom loving secularly educated citizens here. Furthermore, the military is rank with corruption. Many of the bones picked had to do with law enforcement and military flaunting their power and guns without cause.
What a surprise - we pick a side based on one fact alone: who has the most power and will hopefully appreciate our vague support in the future?
We may have short term memory loss when it comes to these things but I don't think the rest of the world does.
For example, in 2009, when Mubarak visited the White House, there was nothing but honey soaked praise dripping from both President's lips. From a Huffington Post article dated 8/18/09, "Obama thanked his Egyptian counterpart for joining him in trying to construct a deal that has eluded world leaders for more than six decades [Palestinian/Israeli Peace]."
First of all, fucking really? I will never understand why much of the world hypocritically cries out for peace between Israel and Palestine while strategically and economically supporting only Israel.
However, I also don't understand how we can lean on Mubarak and his US friendly government for our needs and now insist he get the fuck out of office and let his country work itself out.
Chances are strong that the new government will crave a more autonomous rule than we would like them to have. We want to get in there, move some cards around, stuff some cash into key players' pockets while smiling for the cameras and shallowly discussing world peace.
As my earlier post on the failing war on terror, the people are angry. The people in the Middle East don't appreciate our particular brand of "Uncle Sam knows best" politics.
I don't think they'll buy into our sudden support and condemnation of a man who only a few days ago was considered a friend and ally in the war on terror.
And just as an aside, a philosophical musing, if you will...
What would the world say if it were us out there? What would our president do if suddenly millions of Americans took to the streets, organized in a mass revolution against, well, the same things really: unemployment, corruption, dwindling rights, poverty, with the added issues of two un-winnable wars, a broken economy, a fucked infrastructure and no accountability for the wrong doers?
Oh shit, looks like we have quite a list of grievances...but not to worry corporate America, not to worry. We won't mobilize into a tangible protest against your stranglehold on our souls and livelihood. After all, if you want something, do something. And I guess we don't want it bad enough.