See here.
[PS: And thanks to my old friend Slater for the link to this relevant article as well.]
[PPS: Another take worth checking out.]
Sunday, February 6, 2011
QUOTE FOR THESE DAYS
"A tourist who was interviewed last night from Cairo spoke for millions of his fellow Americans when he said he couldn't imagine living in a country like Egypt. It is hard, isn't it?
Imagine: A government run by and for the rich and powerful. Leaders who lecture others about "sacrifice" and deficits while cutting taxes for corporations and the wealthy. A system so corrupt that rich executives can break the law without fear of being punished. Increasing poverty and hardship even as the stock market rises. And now, a nation caught between a broken political system and a populist movement that could be hijacked by religious extremists at any moment.
No wonder they're upset! Why, we'd be marching in the streets too.
Here's the reality: Income inequality is actually greater in the United States than it is in Egypt. Politicians here have close financial ties to big corporations, both personally and through their campaigns. Corporate lawbreakers often do go unpunished. Poverty and unemployment statistics for US minorities are surprisingly similar to Egypt's.
And remember the ratings agencies that told us everything was fine with our country's banking system, right up to the moment it collapsed? Just two months ago, Moody's reassured investors that the Egyptian government had a "stable outlook" for the foreseeable future. Sure, the analogy only goes so far. But why is it so much easier to see what's wrong on the other side of the world than it is here at home?"
—R.J. Eskow
Saturday, February 5, 2011
PS TO MARIA SCHNEIDER R.I.P.
My friend, the the poet Ray DiPalma, hipped me to this article, that left me feeling guilty about still digging LAST TANGO IN PARIS (and never digging Antonioni that much, especially THE PASSENGER) and Bertolucci's films in general.
Friday, February 4, 2011
STILL WAITING
When the right began attacking Obama on his first day in office (actually it was going on before then, but the "daily message" on target coordinated anti-Obama campaign began that first day in earnest) they immediately blamed him for everything that the previous administration (Bush/Cheney, lest we forget) had caused, especially the disastrous economy.
They blamed him for the stock market's continuing decline in his first months in office, for instance, and the unemployment rate going up (and for the bank bailout even though that initially occurred under Bush/Cheney, and for the auto industry bailout).
What's telling about the right's arguments and attacks is it never has anything to do with reality because, as we have seen, the stock market has not only rebounded robustly and is now ahead of where it was pre-Obama, but have we heard anyone on the right now praise Obama for fixing what they were criticizing him for not fixing? I'm still waiting.
The unemployment rate went down this month and has never reached the heights it did under Ronald Reagan, so the right should be happy about that right? I'm still waiting.
The bailouts turned out to be successful, the American auto industry was saved and with it thousands and thousands of jobs were kept here in the USA instead of going overseas and as with the banks most of the bailout money has been paid back. Any congrats for Obama on that rightwingers? Still waiting.
Et-endlessly-cetera.
[Oh, and as for his Obama's critics on the left, they are rightfully dismayed over many Bush/Cheney policies Obama has not been successful in reversing, but he promised to end the war in Iraq and for all intents and purposes the war in Iraq is over for U.S. troops. There is still unfortunately violence there, but U.S. casualties are almost nonexistent, especially compared to where they were when Obama took office. And over half the troops that were there when he came in have been withdrawn and if he keeps his promise the rest will be gone by the end of this year. Any kudos from the left for that yet? Still waiting. And a lot of GBLT folks I know were totally pissed off at Obama when he didn't just write an executive order to get rid of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" but he said his strategy was to get the support of the military first and then get it passed through Congress so it would be much more difficult to attack and repeal, which he has accomplished. Most of these same GBLT folks have yet to tell me they're grateful to Obama for getting something done that no one else seemed able to before him, though I'm sure they are, but how about letting the world know that? Still waiting. And so on.]
[PS: And just to make it clear, there are a host of things I believe Obama could have done and be doing better, but nobody's perfect and he sure beats the alternative(s).]
They blamed him for the stock market's continuing decline in his first months in office, for instance, and the unemployment rate going up (and for the bank bailout even though that initially occurred under Bush/Cheney, and for the auto industry bailout).
What's telling about the right's arguments and attacks is it never has anything to do with reality because, as we have seen, the stock market has not only rebounded robustly and is now ahead of where it was pre-Obama, but have we heard anyone on the right now praise Obama for fixing what they were criticizing him for not fixing? I'm still waiting.
The unemployment rate went down this month and has never reached the heights it did under Ronald Reagan, so the right should be happy about that right? I'm still waiting.
The bailouts turned out to be successful, the American auto industry was saved and with it thousands and thousands of jobs were kept here in the USA instead of going overseas and as with the banks most of the bailout money has been paid back. Any congrats for Obama on that rightwingers? Still waiting.
Et-endlessly-cetera.
[Oh, and as for his Obama's critics on the left, they are rightfully dismayed over many Bush/Cheney policies Obama has not been successful in reversing, but he promised to end the war in Iraq and for all intents and purposes the war in Iraq is over for U.S. troops. There is still unfortunately violence there, but U.S. casualties are almost nonexistent, especially compared to where they were when Obama took office. And over half the troops that were there when he came in have been withdrawn and if he keeps his promise the rest will be gone by the end of this year. Any kudos from the left for that yet? Still waiting. And a lot of GBLT folks I know were totally pissed off at Obama when he didn't just write an executive order to get rid of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" but he said his strategy was to get the support of the military first and then get it passed through Congress so it would be much more difficult to attack and repeal, which he has accomplished. Most of these same GBLT folks have yet to tell me they're grateful to Obama for getting something done that no one else seemed able to before him, though I'm sure they are, but how about letting the world know that? Still waiting. And so on.]
[PS: And just to make it clear, there are a host of things I believe Obama could have done and be doing better, but nobody's perfect and he sure beats the alternative(s).]
Thursday, February 3, 2011
MARIA SCHNIEDER R.I.P.
I just found out Maria Schneider, the French film actress, passed at only 58. Her impact in the first movie I saw her in, LAST TANGO IN PARIS, was unforgettable, holding her own against two iconic film presences, Marlon Brando and fellow French actor, Jean-Pierre Leaud (who first made his mark on a lot of our movie-going lives almost two decades before LAST TANGO in THE 400 BLOWS, and went on to play Truffaut's alter-ego a few more times).
After LAST TANGO Schneider went on to play opposite lots of famous leading men, Jack Nicholson being just one (the rest were mostly European), but she never achieved the kind of iconic status I think she deserved (she was only nineteen went she dominated the screen in LAST TANGO). That may have been because TANGO was initially rated "X"—which in part led to the changing of the ratings system when the notoriety it received had soft and hardcore porn filmmakers rating their films "X" to get people into their theaters—but became NC-17 under the new system, and as a result a lot of people didn't see it or saw it in the censored version Blockbuster rented out for years without telling their customers the film had been cut in ways that destroyed a lot of the emotional and artistic impact (thanks to the fundamentalist head of Blockbuster) etc.
Somehow her going feels like the end of an era. Guess it is.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
PS TO LAST (EGYPTIAN) POST
I've been out and must admit that though freezing rain and ice are more treacherous and problematic than snow for getting around, they sure leave the landscape sparklingly brilliant. The trees look like they're lit up from inside. Pretty beautiful.
But also, since I was out, events in Egypt, or at least Cairo's "Liberation Square" have become more clear. The media, as usual, is being way too conservative in describing the clash as between "pro-Mubarak" forces and "anti-Mubarak" forces, doing that false equation of both sides that the right has trained them to do over the past decade (and before, of course, but it became more constant and predictable under Bush/Cheney).
These aren't equal groups of Egyptian citizens demonstrating for their political positions! These were peaceful demonstrators protesting their corrupt dictatorship attacked by plainclothes agents of that dictatorship while the police (many of them as it turns at are police) and army looked on and allowed it.
It may work, as we've seen before, in China in 1989 in Tienanmen Square and in Iran recently when the "Green Revolution" was crushed, beginning with attacks from the same kinds of government security forces or "thugs" as they have been called, correctly.
It doesn't look good for the protesters, but the taste of freedom they had for the past several days and the sense that their country and fellow citizens could be brave enough to confront their government will remain, even if Mubarak ends up staying for the next ten months, or tries to find a way to run again and fix another election.
However Obama and his administration should make some gesture, cut off funds etc., to the army to show that their standing by and allowing government thugs to throw fire bombs and attack peaceful demonstrators (starting with the men on horses and camel whipping members of the crowd, which got its revenge in some cases, and as my friend Lisa pointed out, it seemed even more horrendous and humiliating to see these men whipping citizens for peacefully protesting then even shooting them in some ways, obviously not ultimately) is intolerable in a democracy, which Egypt pretends to be and hopefully is becoming.
But also, since I was out, events in Egypt, or at least Cairo's "Liberation Square" have become more clear. The media, as usual, is being way too conservative in describing the clash as between "pro-Mubarak" forces and "anti-Mubarak" forces, doing that false equation of both sides that the right has trained them to do over the past decade (and before, of course, but it became more constant and predictable under Bush/Cheney).
These aren't equal groups of Egyptian citizens demonstrating for their political positions! These were peaceful demonstrators protesting their corrupt dictatorship attacked by plainclothes agents of that dictatorship while the police (many of them as it turns at are police) and army looked on and allowed it.
It may work, as we've seen before, in China in 1989 in Tienanmen Square and in Iran recently when the "Green Revolution" was crushed, beginning with attacks from the same kinds of government security forces or "thugs" as they have been called, correctly.
It doesn't look good for the protesters, but the taste of freedom they had for the past several days and the sense that their country and fellow citizens could be brave enough to confront their government will remain, even if Mubarak ends up staying for the next ten months, or tries to find a way to run again and fix another election.
However Obama and his administration should make some gesture, cut off funds etc., to the army to show that their standing by and allowing government thugs to throw fire bombs and attack peaceful demonstrators (starting with the men on horses and camel whipping members of the crowd, which got its revenge in some cases, and as my friend Lisa pointed out, it seemed even more horrendous and humiliating to see these men whipping citizens for peacefully protesting then even shooting them in some ways, obviously not ultimately) is intolerable in a democracy, which Egypt pretends to be and hopefully is becoming.
EGYPTIAN SUSPICIONS
This may be a little more muddle even than usual. I haven't read or watched too much on Egypt since early last evening. I've been dealing with the ice storm residue. I'll take snow over ice and slush any day. But...
...it occurs to me—from the snippet I caught from the hourly news headlines on PBS and elsewhere this morning—that the pro-Mubarak forces now clashing with the anti-Mubarak forces exemplify the classic right/left struggle.
There are probably some elements of the anti-Mubarak folks that are interested in gaining power for their own ideological reasons, The Muslim Brotherhood for instance. But the heart of the anti-Mubarak movement is made up of non-ideological people who had just had enough and when they saw what happened in Tunisia were inspired to attempt something similar, a peaceful ending to a corrupt dictatorship.
According to at least one news segment I saw, the person most responsible for the outpouring of citizens outrage at Mubarak is a single mother in her early thirties, an English teacher if I remember correctly, who with a tiny group of friends, only about ten, set up an operation in a small office to coordinate the protests.
The people at the protests, at least throughout most of the past several days, have mostly been ordinary folks, women in traditional Muslim garb and others in Western styles, young and old, even children and entire families. But their sentiments, as expressed in every interview I read and saw (which over the past several days must be close to a hundred at least) were reasonable, condemning Mubarak's rule and wanting nothing more than a less corrupt economy (where only the rich seem to benefit) and more freedom of movement and behavior.
The pro-Mubarak forces that have been attacking the peaceful demonstrators seem to obviously have been helped by the government. Being allowed to ride a horse or camel while carrying whips and other things that can be used as weapons into a peaceful crowd by folks who support a dictator whose regime would never tolerate such a thing before, seems like a set up.
It's obvious to me at least that Mubarak has been trying to set up the kind of chaos and failure of civil society that will lead to people calling on him to save the country. It didn't work in letting prisoners free and holding back security forces which encouraged looting etc., because ordinary people banded together and formed that human chain around the museum of Egyptian antiquities (and it was only after they did that the army came in to secure those buildings) or vigilante groups to protect their own neighborhoods from looters etc.
Mubarak could have stepped down and allowed a peaceful transition to an interim government until a democratically elected one could take over. But he has chosen not to, and under pressure from the USA and others has restrained his security forces (and possibly the army, which is more independent and may be refusing to allow itself to be used by Mubarak to crush the revolt ala Iran) and also probably went along with that to create the kind of chaos that would lead to his being seen as the only possible savior of the situation.
It was clear from his speech yesterday that he is hoping his concessions will take the steam out of the protests or if they don't then he'll restrain security forces and "allow" (I believe encourage and even fund and back) pro-Mubarak forces to attack what had been peaceful demonstrators. The old "us against them" divide-and-conquer tactic, which often intimidates ordinary people into wanting a peaceful resolution even if it is at the expense of the ideals they and changes they support.
On a much smaller scale, but even more significant, when Florida was still counting ballots to determine the outcome of the 2000 election, rightwing Republican strategists transported a bunch of their people, mostly men, to the scene where the votes were being counted and staged a mini-riot/demonstration as if they represented a popular movement to stop counting the votes and give the election to Bush junior. Unfortunately it worked, as it too often does.
The peaceful crowds that rejoiced when Obama was elected and were hoping for the kinds of changes mot polls show most "Americans" want, not unlike most Egyptians, i.e. a fairer economy, less expensive and more accessible healthcare, a more tolerant political atmosphere where entire groups—gays, Muslims, "liberals," racial minorities, immigrants, etc.—are not scapegoated, etc.
Obama and the Democrats failed to fulfill some of the promise of that transitional election, but they were immediately met with active and belligerent protests fueled by rightwing gazillionaires like the Koch brothers and by ideologically rightwing media, like Fox, as if the democratically elected government of our country had been taken over by a foreign power (the "birthers" etc.) or nefarious forces out to destroy our country (almost any rightwing commenter or politician) and succeeded in framing the argument in their terms rather than the duly elected administration's.
The right used force when it didn't get its way in the last presidential election, as demonstrated in by the shouting down and refusal to let elected officials speak at town hall meetings etc., and continue to advocate force to get their way, as demonstrated in all the statements from rightwingers about "second amendment rights" being necessary to stop Obama etc. (ala Bachmann et. al.). Even the far left has not been advocating force when they haven't gotten their way (at least since the early 1970s).
And the "liberal" position, as opposed to those who call themselves "conservatives" these days, has always been to use reason and discussion to resolve problem, political and otherwise. But how can there be reason when those who hold power, ala Mubarak, or refuse to accept that they don't, ala the right in this country post-2008, will say and often do anything to maintain or regain their side's hold on power.
This is what's happening in Egypt at this moment, (or at least as of the moment I began writing this post) and in our own country, where rightwing spokespeople like Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh have actually been making the argument that Obama is our Mubarak!
More will be revealed.
[PS: Just turned on the news and see that they are reporting, at least on MSNBC from reporters on the scene, that my suspicions were correct, the pro-Mubarak supporters now clashing with the peaceful anti-Mubarak forces have been bussed in by the government and allowed to carry weapons and incite violence (including at the moment fire bombs) to try and clear that main Cairo square ("Liberation Square") the way the Chinese brought in troops from rural China to attack the peaceful demonstrators in Tienanmen Square in '89. Mubarak doesn't seem to have that option since the army seems to be remaining mostly neutral, though allowing the pro-Mubarak forces to carry out physical attacks is a kind of side-taking...]
...it occurs to me—from the snippet I caught from the hourly news headlines on PBS and elsewhere this morning—that the pro-Mubarak forces now clashing with the anti-Mubarak forces exemplify the classic right/left struggle.
There are probably some elements of the anti-Mubarak folks that are interested in gaining power for their own ideological reasons, The Muslim Brotherhood for instance. But the heart of the anti-Mubarak movement is made up of non-ideological people who had just had enough and when they saw what happened in Tunisia were inspired to attempt something similar, a peaceful ending to a corrupt dictatorship.
According to at least one news segment I saw, the person most responsible for the outpouring of citizens outrage at Mubarak is a single mother in her early thirties, an English teacher if I remember correctly, who with a tiny group of friends, only about ten, set up an operation in a small office to coordinate the protests.
The people at the protests, at least throughout most of the past several days, have mostly been ordinary folks, women in traditional Muslim garb and others in Western styles, young and old, even children and entire families. But their sentiments, as expressed in every interview I read and saw (which over the past several days must be close to a hundred at least) were reasonable, condemning Mubarak's rule and wanting nothing more than a less corrupt economy (where only the rich seem to benefit) and more freedom of movement and behavior.
The pro-Mubarak forces that have been attacking the peaceful demonstrators seem to obviously have been helped by the government. Being allowed to ride a horse or camel while carrying whips and other things that can be used as weapons into a peaceful crowd by folks who support a dictator whose regime would never tolerate such a thing before, seems like a set up.
It's obvious to me at least that Mubarak has been trying to set up the kind of chaos and failure of civil society that will lead to people calling on him to save the country. It didn't work in letting prisoners free and holding back security forces which encouraged looting etc., because ordinary people banded together and formed that human chain around the museum of Egyptian antiquities (and it was only after they did that the army came in to secure those buildings) or vigilante groups to protect their own neighborhoods from looters etc.
Mubarak could have stepped down and allowed a peaceful transition to an interim government until a democratically elected one could take over. But he has chosen not to, and under pressure from the USA and others has restrained his security forces (and possibly the army, which is more independent and may be refusing to allow itself to be used by Mubarak to crush the revolt ala Iran) and also probably went along with that to create the kind of chaos that would lead to his being seen as the only possible savior of the situation.
It was clear from his speech yesterday that he is hoping his concessions will take the steam out of the protests or if they don't then he'll restrain security forces and "allow" (I believe encourage and even fund and back) pro-Mubarak forces to attack what had been peaceful demonstrators. The old "us against them" divide-and-conquer tactic, which often intimidates ordinary people into wanting a peaceful resolution even if it is at the expense of the ideals they and changes they support.
On a much smaller scale, but even more significant, when Florida was still counting ballots to determine the outcome of the 2000 election, rightwing Republican strategists transported a bunch of their people, mostly men, to the scene where the votes were being counted and staged a mini-riot/demonstration as if they represented a popular movement to stop counting the votes and give the election to Bush junior. Unfortunately it worked, as it too often does.
The peaceful crowds that rejoiced when Obama was elected and were hoping for the kinds of changes mot polls show most "Americans" want, not unlike most Egyptians, i.e. a fairer economy, less expensive and more accessible healthcare, a more tolerant political atmosphere where entire groups—gays, Muslims, "liberals," racial minorities, immigrants, etc.—are not scapegoated, etc.
Obama and the Democrats failed to fulfill some of the promise of that transitional election, but they were immediately met with active and belligerent protests fueled by rightwing gazillionaires like the Koch brothers and by ideologically rightwing media, like Fox, as if the democratically elected government of our country had been taken over by a foreign power (the "birthers" etc.) or nefarious forces out to destroy our country (almost any rightwing commenter or politician) and succeeded in framing the argument in their terms rather than the duly elected administration's.
The right used force when it didn't get its way in the last presidential election, as demonstrated in by the shouting down and refusal to let elected officials speak at town hall meetings etc., and continue to advocate force to get their way, as demonstrated in all the statements from rightwingers about "second amendment rights" being necessary to stop Obama etc. (ala Bachmann et. al.). Even the far left has not been advocating force when they haven't gotten their way (at least since the early 1970s).
And the "liberal" position, as opposed to those who call themselves "conservatives" these days, has always been to use reason and discussion to resolve problem, political and otherwise. But how can there be reason when those who hold power, ala Mubarak, or refuse to accept that they don't, ala the right in this country post-2008, will say and often do anything to maintain or regain their side's hold on power.
This is what's happening in Egypt at this moment, (or at least as of the moment I began writing this post) and in our own country, where rightwing spokespeople like Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh have actually been making the argument that Obama is our Mubarak!
More will be revealed.
[PS: Just turned on the news and see that they are reporting, at least on MSNBC from reporters on the scene, that my suspicions were correct, the pro-Mubarak supporters now clashing with the peaceful anti-Mubarak forces have been bussed in by the government and allowed to carry weapons and incite violence (including at the moment fire bombs) to try and clear that main Cairo square ("Liberation Square") the way the Chinese brought in troops from rural China to attack the peaceful demonstrators in Tienanmen Square in '89. Mubarak doesn't seem to have that option since the army seems to be remaining mostly neutral, though allowing the pro-Mubarak forces to carry out physical attacks is a kind of side-taking...]
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
