What I want is to know what happened to my father. If he is alive, I wish to speak with him and see him. If he has broken the law, he ought to be tried and given a chance to defend himself. And if he is dead, then I want to know how, where and when it happened. I want a date, a detailed account and the location of his body.And those awful people still run these countries--Gaddafi in Libya and Mubarak, who "inherited" the power thanks to Sadat's assassination. It is awful that we have tolerated dictators like Mubarak and Gaddafi and so many others for this long. Matar's observations on Gaddafi could apply to many other dictators too:
Gaddafi is unique among dictators in that he has few constant beliefs. A position which has afforded him an extraordinary instinct for survival.
living without one's country is a kind of daily death, that exile is, in essence, an endless mourning.Here is to hoping for a quick end to the millions of such daily death.
Asked if he would characterize Mubarak as a dictator Biden responded: “Mubarak has been an ally of ours in a number of things. And he’s been very responsible on, relative to geopolitical interest in the region, the Middle East peace efforts; the actions Egypt has taken relative to normalizing relationship with – with Israel. … I would not refer to him as a dictator.”Really? What then are the markings of a dictator?
US speaks again, but no one seems to be listeningThe Daily Show does a fantastic job of examining the American commitment to democracy:
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| The Rule of the Nile | ||||
| ||||
More ordinary citizens are now defying the police. A young demonstrator told me that, when running from the police on Tuesday, he entered a building and rang an apartment bell at random. It was 4am. A 60-year-old man opened the door, fear obvious on his face. The demonstrator asked the man to hide him from the police. The man asked to see his identity card and invited him in, waking one of his three daughters to prepare some food for the young man. They ate and drank tea together and chatted like lifelong friends.Could the sudden overthrow of such regimes be the geopolitical game-changer that I have been waiting for? Certainly these were not on the horizon at all ...
In the morning, when the danger of arrest had receded, the man accompanied the young protester into the street, stopped a taxi for him and offered him some money. The young man refused and thanked them. As they embraced the older man said: "It is I who should be thanking you for defending me, my daughters and all Egyptians."
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| State of the Union 2011 - Correspondent Rebuttal | ||||
| ||||
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Moment of Zen - National Debt Clock | ||||
| ||||
China’s Li Na could ascend to the final while charming everyone in Melbourne with a hilarious postmatch interview in which she blamed her snoring husband for her lack of sleep, among other humorous anecdotes. That spawned the idea that Li could be the crossover star in tennis that Yao Ming was in basketball, but Greg Couch writes on Fanhouse.com that he doesn’t believe she can capture enough attention in the United States. She will get attention in China, however, where tennis was once so obscure Li had to explain the sport to her mother when she decided to play it.
In the past, I have engaged in calm discourse with people from the creationist side, but the biggest problem for me is that ignorance is almost a staple in Christian beliefs. Everything relies on faith. To most Christians my age, being confronted with what philosophers call 'The Problem of Evil' should, in my opinion, make people question the true nature of their God. However, in my experience all dissent, reason and logic is viewed as a test of faith. The problem with faith is that reason can never be trumped by reason if people continue to have faith.
To me, this is not a big deal. I believe that there is a considerable amount of people who either can not, or refuse to think for themselves. It is especially hard when those values have been instilled since childhood. And it certainly is easier being able to get a one hour lesson every week on what is right or what is wrong. Or to be able to watch Fox News and know who you should vote for, or what the opposition is trying to do to destroy your familial values. That, to me, is my biggest qualm with the Christian establishment.
Not being religious, I think our government should be secular as it was written. However, the religious establishment refuses to allow this. Regardless of what a president actually believes, none have been elected without a proclamation of religion. If an atheist or agnostic ran for office, there is no way they would succeed in today's political climate. For example, the governor of Alabama recently proclaimed that non-Christians 'weren't his brothers or sisters.' He ended up apologizing for his remarks, but his apology didn't seem to extend to people who were not religious just those of 'all faiths.' To me, it makes me wonder how that is not a violation of the separation of church and state? It sent the message that regardless of if you pay taxes, vote, participate in our democracy, lacking Christian ideals puts you a step below those who do.
This separation to me alludes to the possibility of a tyranny of a majority. A religious establishment under the guise of a secular one. Were the founding fathers wrong when they wrote our Constitution? Minorities only seem to gain protection after great social upheaval. It took a war for slavery. Since then, women have had to protest on a national stage, then African-Americans, and currently homosexuals. In the 1850s it was a legitimate argument to say that people owned slaves in the bible, so it wasn't wrong. Since then, behind every minority group suppressed there was a religious argument, something I don't understand. In a court of law, if evidence is obtained illegally, it can't be used. Why are religious arguments allowed to be used in social matters, when religion is specifically excluded from the state?
in recent years the dramatic game changers in global history have been quite regular, about a decade apart:2011?
1968: the Tet Offensive
1979: annus horribilis
1989: The Berlin Wall tumbles down
2001: 9/11
Take the case of General Electric, whose chief executive, Jeffrey Immelt, has just been appointed to head that renamed advisory board. I have nothing against either G.E. or Mr. Immelt. But with fewer than half its workers based in the United States and less than half its revenues coming from U.S. operations, G.E.’s fortunes have very little to do with U.S. prosperity.When Krugman writes like this with facts and logic, it is a sheer pleasure to read his columns, as against the rare ones where he gets a tad shrill.
By the way, some have praised Mr. Immelt’s appointment on the grounds that at least he represents a company that actually makes things, rather than being yet another financial wheeler-dealer. Sorry to burst this bubble, but these days G.E. derives more revenue from its financial operations than it does from manufacturing — indeed, GE Capital, which received a government guarantee for its debt, was a major beneficiary of the Wall Street bailout.
Mr. Obama himself may do all right: his approval rating is up, the economy is showing signs of life, and his chances of re-election look pretty good. But the ideology that brought economic disaster in 2008 is back on top — and seems likely to stay there until it brings disaster again.Doesn't sound all too good.
The main impression I got from both Mr Blair's evidence to the inquiry last year and his autobiography was his extraordinary ignorance of Iraq.Thus writes Patrick Cockburn in the Independent (ht) ... And Cockburn adds:
Interesting to note, BTW, how the Wall Street Journal viewed Tony Blair dealing with questions from the Chilcot Commission .... "The prosecution of Tony Blair" .... muahahahaha .... Can Faux Noose beat WSJ's headline? (Update: in light of the comment--below--I now wish all the more for the prosecution of these war criminals. But, we will have to start with KissingerMr Blair's enthusiasm for a confrontation with Iran stems partly from the fact that he never seems to have understood what went wrong for him in Iraq. It was not so much the war against Saddam Hussein that doomed the venture as the occupation which followed. He and President George Bush might have got away with overthrowing Saddam Hussein and his regime if they had swiftly withdrawn and handed over real power to an interim Iraqi government.They did the exact opposite. Instead of withdrawing, the Americans and British occupied the whole country and showed every sign of wanting to remain in control. The occupation was, as Hoshyar Zebari, the Iraqi Foreign Minister and one of the more pro-Western of Iraqi leaders, said, "the mother of all mistakes".
for his Vietnam and Chile decisions.)
