Sign of the Times Middle East Style


Michael Stuart Kelly

Recommended Posts

You mentioned earlier that Ofolk are mostly silent on this complex and ever-evolving situation because of reluctance to get into emotionalist arguments. I suggest a second reason, an inability to analyze it without our usual frames of reference and bases of knowledge. I for one know plenty about Islam, a lot about Muslims, some modern mideast history and that's it. Everybody knows about Islamism and most here know about American foreign policy in the mideast.

I myself have a pretty cynical watching brief on the issue of the future in Tunisia/Egypt. It isn't too hard to get up to speed on the daily slurry of events, but it is much more difficult to get at the elements that will make a difference. So, though I reject the histrionics of Wiig or McWilliam, their underlying fears or trepidations are ones that need examining. Even though I suspect they are mired in a bog of their own making, I hope that they might follow some of the more recent links and extend their factual grasp.

As you suggest, it is hard to analyze events if one is hobbled by a tight frame and scant knowledge, or otherwise stuck in a bog.

I have been keeping track of the various Olists for a while. I read at the top five -- OL, Solopassion, OO.net, and at Noodlefood.

Solopassion is utter Wiig'sville in re the Middle East and has been for a long time. There is no discussion of these recent events. Anyone who dares suggest that the future may not be Islamic Doom is derided, so no discussion has got traction. SOLO harbours the ugliest kind of O-inflected xenophobia and irrationalism at the best of times, and is haunt to some genuinely raisin-hearted cranks along with the ban-happy Perigo.

Rebirth Of Reason has at present one brief thread that takes DOOM as given. The line is that Islamofascism will win both Tunisia and Egypt and that is that and anyone who doubts it is a marxist/creep/non-objectivist moron. That place is staggering from decreptitude into the autopsy suite, however, so it's not too surprising that the wheezy old backslappers rule. The banhammer has cleared away all that pesky dissent.

OO.net has nothing, nothing at last glance a couple of days ago. Not a single post on Egypt or Tunisia. Just the usual grim conformism and touchy moderation and feverish ignorance and clannishness.

Similarly, Diana Hsieh's site has zero references to events in North Africa last I looked. Nothing whatsoever that isn't ARI-approved. The banhammer that Hsief wields means that no voices of dissent are heard, let alone tolerated. Because she bans all dissent, she is losing her audience. Her numbers have plunged over the last couple of years.

OL is, for better or worse, the only online Objectivish forum where current issues get thrashed at length. That is why I struggle to dig up and post information here, and not at the other shitholes. Dissent is tolerated here. No banhammer is ever raised. Folks like me, if not liked, if not of the elect, are at least seen as a part of the community here, not as aliens to be extirpated, shamed, banned and sent packing.

As I say, the last year has seen this website move ahead of all the other sites in the rankings. That is quite an achievement since the split in 2005. It now crushes the old gang in openness, readership, scope, depth, and passion -- and has the best archives of them all. I would say that OL is the number one online place to have an encounter with an Objectivish conversation. I think Michael and his lovely Kat should be proud of that achievement.

Even though I am anything but an Objectivist, I do very much like reason, conceptual thinking, integration of difficult material, rigorous critical analysis and so on. These are what I consider to be the meat and potatoes of Objectivist approaches to reality and I take them seriously. I do my best to not be a guerilla nay-sayer, and I am sure I fail at that, but I try to be a strong adherent and practitioner of the things I do respect in the Objectivist project.

Reason is so often our only tool for flourishing, our only tool against demagogues and manipulators of opinion, against bullshit and hate and lazy-minded preachers and bullies. So often we fail to live up to the harsh dictates of Reason, and use cheap knock-offs instead, knock-offs that are easier on our prejudices and settled opinions.

Your providing relevant background and specifics is much appreciated. You know I am not one to do any heavy scholarly or technological lifting when there are so many big strong men around.

Vile sexist maunderings!

I like your light-heartedness, and you seem to share a certain empathy for folks here that I also feel. You don't write off individuals as crazed Randrobots (which is better than me), and you give a good shake back when shaken -- you give folks the benefit of the doubt, and a hearing, and you seem to employ Reason as best guide.

Thanks for your comments. Relevant background and specifics are valuable to me, and to you, and to most folks here, whether they post or not. There are now 2,567 Views of this thread, versus fuck all at the other places.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 353
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

action-smiley-033.gifgrinning-smiley-003.gif

Take a bow Mr. William Scherk...

appl.gif

party-smiley-038.gif

clicksmilies8295.png For ya'll Canadians up there.

That was a fine statement.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rachid Ghannouchi, the exiled leader of the banned Islamist movement, has returned to Tunisia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was big news on Al Jazeera several days ago.

It is truly unique how potentially "influential" the television news source is in "shaping perceptions." I have been exclusively watching Al Jazeera television on the computer and I would hate the US and Israel if that was my sole source of TV news.

I have to write an article about this because I used to teach it and I have a lot more insight on the McLuhan media issues than when I learned it years ago.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rachid Ghannouchi, the exiled leader of the banned Islamist movement, has returned to Tunisia.

He was interviewed in London by the Financial Times before his return. The interview is an eye-opener and should deeply distress Emir McWillam and the Grand Mufti Wiig.

Excerpt:

FT: Are you in contact with the other leaders in the opposition? Have you been consulting with them?

RG: We as a member of the October 18 movement which we founded in 2005 and it brings together parties and civil society institutions, including Nejib Chebbi from the Progressive Democratic Party, the Tunisian Communist Workers Party, and the Conference for the Republic and other human rights organisations. This was founded in 2005 for one simple demand: to call for freedom of expression and association for everyone and for recognising the rights of all parties.

Later when we developed this coalition, to elaborate this joint intellectual basis we produced several papers which all members of this movement agree on and embrace. The first was a paper on philosophical pluralism. There is no limit to pluralism except not embracing violence, and giving the rights to anyone to found the party.

The second was the rights of women because the government used to always say to frighten people away that (the Islamists) will take away the rights of women. Then we had to reassure others in this coalition who were being accused of working with the Islamists. And we all recognise, we accept the personal status code and will not cancel it or refuse it. Indeed we had expressed this since 1988 on 17 July where I made a statement in which I recognised the personal status code.

Another paper was on the freedom of conscience, to address the allegations that Islamists will be using the punishment for apostasy and will kill people for what they believe. The paper recognised that Tunisians have the freedom to believe in anything, to leave or embrace any faith, as faith is a personal matter. On the basis of these papers the coalition moved from no longer being a short-term political coalition, but a social project for society.

For the Tunisia that we are working for, one in which women enjoy equality, people can establish and join any party and they have the freedom to believe any faith.

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disclaimer: I posted this on a very serious thread and I do not wish my intruding with humor to take away from the goal of discussing the compelling issues being raised. The cartoon just struck me as funny. Should have picked a better place.

The boy President O'biwan responds to the Egyptian "perfect storm" as his Sextratery Secretary [sexist title!] Hillary Rodham Rodham clinton referred to the events:

O'biwan poked his head out from his combined golf and basketball bunker and said:

ISStoonClr0207.jpg.cms-thumb-440x301.jpeg

PETA immediately filed a Federal Lawsuit claiming discrimination and slanderous characterization of deer by the boy President's appalling appearance as a deer in the headlights.

Adam

Edited by Selene
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted this on a very serious thread and I do not wish my intruding with humor to take away from the goal of discussing the compelling issues being raised. The cartoon just struck me as funny. Should have picked a better place.

The cartoon is great, and it speaks for itself, really. I look forward to your next post here, as long as you don't post drunk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted this on a very serious thread and I do not wish my intruding with humor to take away from the goal of discussing the compelling issues being raised. The cartoon just struck me as funny. Should have picked a better place.

The cartoon is great, and it speaks for itself, really. I look forward to your next post here, as long as you don't post drunk.

William:

Sorry, lol.

Cannot oblige. Do not drink.

What's the old joke? Do not drink anymore, or any less.

There was a report on Al Jazeera that the Muslim Brotherhood agreed to meet on Sunday with the Egyptian Vice President.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a report on Al Jazeera that the Muslim Brotherhood agreed to meet on Sunday with the Egyptian Vice President.

Yes.

Events are running very fast. Here's a quick round-up of some of the stories that I pondered today. Special link at the bottom for Emir Wiig and the Doom Brigade . . .

Fox News: Egypt tells Iran: mind your own business

Ha'aretz: Egyptians, like Israelis are desperately searching for peace

Al Jazeera: Egypt remains at an impasse

Ha'aretz: Rise of Islamist movements is a price Egypt will have to pay

Daily Mail: Egyptian police use Facebook and Twitter to track down protesters' names before 'rounding them up'

Christian Science Monitor: How the Egyptian revolt will recast the Middle East

Jerusalem Post: Dangerously underestimating the Muslim Brotherhood

New York Times: Egypt Stability Hinges on a Divided Military

For those who want to monitor Al Jazeera coverage, as Adam does, two ways to do that on the web -- a live stream on their own page, and a live stream via Youtube. I also highly recommend both Reuters and the Guardian for their live feeds.

For the Implacable Doomsters only, all they need to know . . . and of course, the centre of The Paranoid Brotherhood itself.

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Fox News.

DEVELOPING: Thousands of protesters have gathered in Cairo's Tahrir Square awaiting word on whether Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak will stay in office amid conflicting reports as he is expected to address the nation Thursday evening.

A senior Egyptian official confirms to Fox News that President Hosni Mubarak will step down shortly and transfer authority to the Egyptian Higher Council of the Armed Forces -- but Egypt's information minister tells Reuters that "the president is definitely not going to step down."

The group is comprised of the minister of defense, Field Marshal Hussein Tantawi – who stands atop the military hierarchy – along with the military’s chief of staff, the chief of operations, and commanders of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Air Defenses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Al Jazeera live, as the crowd in Liberation Square awaits Mubarak's speech. Expect an on-the-spot translation once he appears (or wait a few days for Glenn Beck to suggest what it means).

Youtube en direct

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Al Jazeera live, as the crowd in Liberation Square awaits Mubarak's speech. Expect an on-the-spot translation once he appears (or wait a few days for Glenn Beck to suggest what it means).

Youtube en direct

Different layout on this one:

AlJazeera different layout

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Al Jazeera live, as the crowd in Liberation Square awaits Mubarak's speech. Expect an on-the-spot translation once he appears (or wait a few days for Glenn Beck to suggest what it means).

Youtube en direct

AlJazeera different layout

Shorter speech: "I am not going anywhere. Blah blah blah. I am not going anywhere. I have decided, I I I me me me, my government, I have directed, I decree, I me my mine not going."

Crowd reaction: "Get out! Get out! Get out you stupid old patronizing fuck! Get out! Get out!"

President: "I hear you, oh youth. I me my decree stay blah blah"

Crowd reaction: "He shall leave! Get out!"

What a sad, empty bag of bullshit Pharoah delivered.

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Al Jazeera live, as the crowd in Liberation Square awaits Mubarak's speech. Expect an on-the-spot translation once he appears (or wait a few days for Glenn Beck to suggest what it means).

Youtube en direct

AlJazeera different layout

Shorter speech: "I am not going anywhere. Blah blah blah. I am not going anywhere. I have decided, I I I me me me, my government, I have directed, I decree, I me my mine not going.

Crowd reaction: "Get out! Get out! Get out you stupid old patronizing fuck! Get out! Get out!"

President: "I hear you, oh youth. I me my decree stay blah blah"

Crowd reaction: "He shall leave! Get out!"

What a sad, empty bag of bullshit Pharoah delivered.

Is it up to the Egyptian army now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Folks this is not good.

This is the second time that O'biwan has gotten out in front of a Mubarak speech and the second time he has looked like a complete neophyte with no feel for what our role is.

Couple this with the Saudi Prince telling us yesterday that we should back off and that we should not humiliate Mubarak and that Saudi Arabia would underwrite Mubarak if the US pulls back its billion plus foreign aide.

"In a testy telephone call on January 29, King Abdullah told the US President not to humiliate Mr Mubarak and said the Egyptian leader should be allowed to stay on to oversee the transition towards democracy and then to leave with dignity, The Times of London reported yesterday."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/back-off-hosni-mubarak-saudi-king-abdullah-warns-barack-obama/story-e6frg6so-1226003947985

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a sad, empty bag of bullshit Pharoah delivered.

Is it up to the Egyptian army now?

I have no idea. I think Mubarak is enclosed in a bubble and has no comprehension of what Egypt will tolerate. As you will have seen, his words electrified the crowd -- into revulsion.

The army is a part of the police state. How can they act now? No one knows. We can only watch and wait and hope that Pharoah can figure out that he just threw gas on the fire.

Tomorrow there may be four million people on the street. If Pharaoh cannot figure it out . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that I have seen this script before...

Pharaoh...

Let my people go...

so where are the frogs?

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the Guardian's live update page:

9.26pm GMT: Omar Suleiman is going to make a televised statement shortly.

It seems that crowds from Tahrir Square are moving towards the state television headquarters in Cairo, while in Alexandria protesters are said to be moving towards the nearest military base.

State television has reverted to its old trick of showing the protesters in the distance, showing that it at least remains firmly under the control of the regime.

-- Egyptian state TV has switched its coverage to long-view shots of the crowds. I wonder if the state TV crews are watching the CCTV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Appointed VP Suleiman, head of Intelligence, speaks on state TV.

Shorter version: "Let's join hands and march forward. Youth peace blah blah blah love of homeland. I call on youth. Go home. Go to work. Let's join hands. Do not listen to Satellite TV which serves sedition. We have started work, relying on god and the armed forces. Go home now, children. Clock is ticking. Blah blah blah. We will work in the spirit of the team. Maintain security. God says in the holy scripture 'you work and god will see your deeds.' Bye now."

Crowd reaction: "Are you insane? You are the torturer-in-chief. Pack your bags."

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting unconfirmed report from the Guardian live blog (taken from CNN interview).

10.33pm GMT: Egypt's ambassador to the US, Sameh Shoukry, confirms that Hosni Mubarak has transferred all powers of the president to vice president Omar Suleiman.

In response to questions from CNN's Wolf Blitzer, Shoukry said that Mubarak was "the de jure president" and that Suleiman was now the "de facto president". "I'm getting this from the vice president," Shoukry said.

"He [vice president Suleiman] is now undertaking all the authority of the presidency under the constitution," Shoukry.

Was Mubarak now in effect powerless? "That is certainly an interpretation you can make ... he remains the de jure head of state," said Shoukry.

Asked in Mubarak could reclaim the full powers of the presidency at a later date, Shoukry said: "That's a technical constitutional issue that I unable to speak to."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a data point that could be of use to those who wonder about Egyptian public opinion. Questions on Muslim Brotherhood, possible presidents, the peace treaty with Israel, reaction to Obama vis a vis Egypt, support for Islamic State, etcetera.

Phone 
Survey 
of 
Cairo 
and 
Alexandria -- February
 5‐8,
2011

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find one very obvious fact absent to a fault in most all the commentary I read and see in the mainstream (the sources I look at are Drudge and Google News for online, and Fox and CNN for TV, with sporadic Google searches for other online info and videos).

People talk about what happened to the Shah of Iran in the 1979 Democratic Revolution in Iran (that kinda what it was called when it happend).

What makes people think that Mubarak does not know what happened to the Shah of Iran? People talk about this as if he is not aware of it. But if anybody is aware of it, he's the one.

I have lived under a military dictatorship, and it was very similar to Mubarak's government. One thing I learned is that military dictators are not stupid, they are masters of the sucker punch and they take care of each other.

I'm not making predictions, but every time I see Mubarak do anything, I find it normal for a person like him. But I am constantly reading all about the surprise surprise surprise from the commentators.

The level of naivety I am witnessing seems totally contrived. Feigning naivety is nothing new with the mainstream, but I haven't got a bead yet on what they are really getting at. The constant extolling of the freedom of the Egyptian people and similar stuff--from them--does not ring true to my ear.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting unconfirmed report from the Guardian live blog (taken from CNN interview).

10.33pm GMT: Egypt's ambassador to the US, Sameh Shoukry, confirms that Hosni Mubarak has transferred all powers of the president to vice president Omar Suleiman.

In response to questions from CNN's Wolf Blitzer, Shoukry said that Mubarak was "the de jure president" and that Suleiman was now the "de facto president". "I'm getting this from the vice president," Shoukry said.

This doesn't make sense. If the news is true, there is an actual legal procedure to be carried out, explicitly laid out in the Egyptian constitution.

Why it doesn't make sense is threefold. Neither Suleiman or Mubarak noted the Article (82) that covers transition, although Mubarak cited in his speech several other articles explicitly: 76, 77, 88, 93, 181, and 189 (Mubarak also mentioned that he would direct procedures to annul Article 179 -- the one that allows him to send any legal matter to secret military courts).

In a nutshell, if power shifts legally from a President to a Vice-President, the power to propose constitutional amendments or dismiss a cabinet expires in the transition. According to the long-version Constitution (not the one on the official site), once a VP takes over, no constitutional change is possible at all.

No wonder the Egyptian Ambassador comes off confused. The way Mubarak has set up the political structure, there is no possible way to have change unless he, the sitting president directs it.

It is crazy, but an indication of how Mubarak has manipulated law to prevent anyone from ever taking over from him.

I almost feel sorry for the old fuck. He has been boxed in by his own dictatorial law with no way out.

++++++++++++++

Addendum: the built-in confusions are further explicated in a story from Egypt News, Experts disagree over constitutional scenarios to solve crisis in Egypt

Even constitutional experts disagree on the perfect scenario and how the constitution should best be interpreted and implemented.

The first scenario was presented by government officials who stated that only the president has the jurisdiction to request the amendment of the constitution based on article 189. They cited this as a strong reason preventing the President from stepping down along with the claim that there would be a power vacuum that would plunge the country into endless chaos.

“These statements are untrue and even unconstitutional,” lawyer and professor of constitutional law in Cairo University Raafat Fouda told Daily News Egypt. “The President and one third of the People’s Assembly (lower house) both have the jurisdiction to request the amendment of the constitution.” Only with both parties' consent can proposed amendments move forward.

Fouda said that the government was using this as an excuse to disperse the revolution and keep President Hosni Mubarak in power.

However, deputy dean of the Faculty of Law at Cairo University, Anas Gaafar disagreed.

“It’s better for the President to stay until the end of his term especially that it’s not a long time so he can dissolve the People’s Assembly and implement reform in preparation for the upcoming presidential elections,” Gaafar told Daily News Egypt.

“This will lead to stability in the country which is more important than any other considerations,” he added.

According to Article 84 of the constitution, if there is a vacancy in the presidential office, presidential elections should be held within 60 days. Article 76 of the constitution imposes many restrictions making it impossible for independent candidates to run in presidential elections.

President Hosni Mubarak announced in his speech last week that he would request amendments to Articles 76 and 77, allowing independent candidates to run for president and placing limits on presidential terms.

According to Article 189 , constitutional amendments have to be approved by the People’s Assembly.

If the amendments proposed are rejected by the majority of the People’s Assembly, then amendments of the same articles cannot be proposed again until a year passes from the day of rejection.

Skeptics doubt that the illegitimate parliament that was elected amid widespread fraud would vote in favor of the amendments. Calls on the government to dissolve the parliament continue to go unanswered

President Mubarak merely vowed to implement all court orders legally challenging some members of parliament, after those verdicts were initially ignored.

The second scenario, proposed by the “Council of Wise Men” and other opposition groups, states that President Mubarak can delegate his authority to Vice President Omar Suleiman who can then amend the constitution, dissolve the parliament and prepare for free democratic elections in September.

The advocates of this scenario rely on Article 139 of the constitution in their argument, adding that the President could finish his term as an honorary President without any authority.

“The President can’t delegate all his responsibilities to the Vice President or anyone else according to the constitution,” Fouda said. “He can only delegate executive responsibilities which don’t include amending the constitution or dissolving the Parliament.”

“Article 82 states that the President can delegate responsibilities if he is incapacitated through illness, but this is a revolution,” Fouda added.

Article 82 states that the President is allowed to “delegate his powers to a vice president on account of any temporary obstacle the President of the Republic is unable to carry out his functions.” It adds that the delegated powers do not include requesting amendments to the constitution or dissolving the parliament.

But under Article 139, “the President of the Republic may appoint one or more Vice Presidents, define their jurisdiction and relieve them of their posts,”

“The President can assign the Vice President any jurisdictions he chooses, but the President has to be willing to do so which doesn’t apply in our case,” Gaafar said.

However Fouda disagreed, adding that, “it’s unconstitutional for the President to remain in his post as a figurehead without having any responsibilities or jurisdictions.

“That only happens in parliamentary systems [like England],” he added.

The third scenario provided by Article 152 — that hasn’t been widely circulated or discussed — is having a referendum on the constitutional amendments.

“I’m not a fan of this scenario,” Gaafar said. “The situation in Egypt now is very unstable and the rate of illiteracy and poverty in Egypt is very high.”

“And now in the middle of the revolution many people might boycott this referendum because it’ll be held by the regime,” he said. “Opposition groups might vote based on their interests and the results and repercussions of this referendum might be devastating.”

Deputy Head of the Cassation Court, Ahmed Mekky, who was appointed Tuesday as a member of the constitutional refrom panel convened by presidential decree, told Daily News Egypt, “The debate over the constitution isn’t an issue…the issue is implementing change and reform despite the methods.”

“Israel for example has no constitution and yet the whole world acknowledges it as a democracy,” Mekky added.

The fourth scenario proposed is that if the revolution succeeds in toppling the government, the constitution in turn is annulled and an interim national council representing the people leads the country into reform and democracy and forms a new constitution.

“This is the only scenario that’s acceptable under the current circumstances,” Fouda said, “This is what happened in Egypt’s 1952 revolution and other revolutions around the world including Romania and France.”

“In this case an interim government representing the people in Tahrir Square and different opposition groups will take over and form a new constitution,” he said.

“The only problem is that the revolution isn’t complete yet…the protestors haven’t toppled the regime,” he said.

“What’s stalling that is the army’s stance to remain neutral and not support the revolution, while the government seems adamant on holding on to power,” he added.

“This scenario remains a possibility as a result of the stubbornness on both sides [the protestors and the government],” Gaafar said. “I fear that a lot of protests will be triggered from Tahrir Square including workers and employees all around Egypt which would be very difficult to control.

“Personally I prefer the first and second scenario to preserve the stability of Egypt, the regime has already made many concessions and reforms,” Gaafar added.

Fouda disagreed saying “corruption is embedded inside this regime…what it couldn’t do in 30 years won’t be done in six months.”

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now