Political oppression is a terrible burden for the individual citizen.
Not only does it marginalize the inherent worth of a human being, it deprives the person from seeking a meaningful recourse to end the suffering. Temporary alleviation is unsatisfactory because changing one leader, one politician, or even a series of laws does not undo the endemic tyranny which forbids a citizen to exercise his natural rights: speech, assembly, religion, and civic participation.
To suffer in imposed silence is isolating torture. Oppressed people are lonely people, convinced that since they cannot speak out for themselves, no one else knows what they are going through. Because they cannot express their outrage, their pain, because they buckle beneath the weight of ignominy, they feel trapped in the certainty of never escaping their political plight.
Loneliness because of powerless isolation produces frustration and despair. Of course, the despair which political oppression creates will not be passively endured forever.
Revolutions throughout history have not broken out because people do not have enough money, or because their governments do not treat them well. People rise up when they are prevented from speaking out, when they are suppressed, when the ruling "powers that be" refuse to allow them to express, protest, or seek redress.
When a nation if pushed to the breaking point, a people will stop at nothing to be heard, even if it means sacrificing their lives.
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Mubarak Returns, The Army Turns, The Mummy Rises Again
The Mummy has awakened, rising from its long slumber.
The Mummy is the old order, the order of oppression, the order of tyranny, the order which has pervaded the known world since the history of man.
Who is the Mummy in post-Mubarak Egypt?
Is it Hosni Mubarak himself, the recently-deposed Egyptian President, now being detained as he struggles with illness? Why do the Egyptian people want to invest their efforts in trying a wicked man, when they still do not have stable rule in the country to supervise a just trial.
The Mummy, is it populist statism which first reared its fearful, dessicated head during the French Revolution? Vengeful populism, then as well as now, demands the blood of bad men. Like a fervent cult, statist populism adheres to the belief that deposing the evil is not enough to eradicate it once and for all. How will the raging masses define "bad"? Who will be next? Will they demand the life of Mubarak's next of kin, friends, allies? At what point will the blood of the common blood be shed instead of spared?
Will political blood lust turn a nation of protesters into terrible miscreants who will devour each other, only to be overpowered by another strongman who provides order, but regards neither God nor man in his rule?
Is the Mummy military dictatorship, currently armed with the undeserved praise and confidence of the people? By this one may describe the Egyptian Army, the one force in Egypt which the people respected. They have the power, and if power corrupts, as it has every ruling coalition whether democratic or autocratic, it is little surprise to see the army firing on those whom it has sworn to protect.
The only way to slay the menacing Mummy is . . .to unwind the forces which have for too long bound up the populace in false notions of liberty.
Freedom is more than protest. It is commitment to ideals which enhance the truth and dignity of each person: responsibility with risk, respect as well as rights. It is breaking free from the natural (base) compunction to wreak revenge on former foes. Freedom demands extending to all, friend and enemy alike, right recognition of human rights; rights which are not created by the state nor preeminent in a religion or culture.
Natural rights, older still than the Mummy of old-order oppression, cannot prevail if bandaged in resentment and violence, or misplaced trust in corruption institutions
The Mummy is the old order, the order of oppression, the order of tyranny, the order which has pervaded the known world since the history of man.
Who is the Mummy in post-Mubarak Egypt?
Is it Hosni Mubarak himself, the recently-deposed Egyptian President, now being detained as he struggles with illness? Why do the Egyptian people want to invest their efforts in trying a wicked man, when they still do not have stable rule in the country to supervise a just trial.
The Mummy, is it populist statism which first reared its fearful, dessicated head during the French Revolution? Vengeful populism, then as well as now, demands the blood of bad men. Like a fervent cult, statist populism adheres to the belief that deposing the evil is not enough to eradicate it once and for all. How will the raging masses define "bad"? Who will be next? Will they demand the life of Mubarak's next of kin, friends, allies? At what point will the blood of the common blood be shed instead of spared?
Will political blood lust turn a nation of protesters into terrible miscreants who will devour each other, only to be overpowered by another strongman who provides order, but regards neither God nor man in his rule?
Is the Mummy military dictatorship, currently armed with the undeserved praise and confidence of the people? By this one may describe the Egyptian Army, the one force in Egypt which the people respected. They have the power, and if power corrupts, as it has every ruling coalition whether democratic or autocratic, it is little surprise to see the army firing on those whom it has sworn to protect.
The only way to slay the menacing Mummy is . . .to unwind the forces which have for too long bound up the populace in false notions of liberty.
Freedom is more than protest. It is commitment to ideals which enhance the truth and dignity of each person: responsibility with risk, respect as well as rights. It is breaking free from the natural (base) compunction to wreak revenge on former foes. Freedom demands extending to all, friend and enemy alike, right recognition of human rights; rights which are not created by the state nor preeminent in a religion or culture.
Natural rights, older still than the Mummy of old-order oppression, cannot prevail if bandaged in resentment and violence, or misplaced trust in corruption institutions
Bahrain: The Arab Spring turned Winter of Discontent
Sunni and Shi'a have rallied for the end of the Khalifah monarchy in Bahrain, another wave of protest in the wake of the Jasmine Revolution that originated in Tunisia and is spreading throughout the Middle East.
Bahraini protests have failed at the onslaught of the Monarchy's military opposition, including support form the neighboring state of Saudi Arabia.
In addition to the superior firepower of the state, The conflicting demands of freedom-fighting protesters has betrayed the cause of failure:
1. More equal distribution of wealth
2. Less unemployment
3. More parliamentary power
(Source: LA Times "'Arab Spring' wilts on one isle." April 15, 2011, A1.)
Missing from this list of demands is recognition of natural rights, the chief service expected from government.
More equal distribution of wealth is tyranny of the less-entitled against the more-propertied. Tyranny in any form is evil, even if wielded by the hands of more people.
It is not the responsibility of the State to provide work for its citizens. Concentrating power into more democratic institutions does not guarantee individual liberty, the necessary condition for individual, free-market prosperity.
Beyond the conflicting demands of the uprising population, marginalized Shiites in Bahrain demand an end to the Monarchy which has condemned them to second-class status for so long. Initially willing to work with the embittered Sunnis, the currently empowered-Shi'as have fearfully distanced themselves from gathering protests.
Revolutions do not succeed in the wake of rapid wipe-out, withdrawal, and redress. The sectarian divide over the alacrity of change within Bahrain has been played out before. Consider the Great Britain's Glorious Revolution of 1688, in which the nation's Parliament invited the Ruling Monarch's next-of-kin to rule the country in the place of Stuart Monarch James the Second, a devout Catholic who was slowly reinstating sectarian hegemony over the United Kingdom. William III of Orange married into a coregency with James II's daughter Mary. Because of his irreversible unpopularity Catholic James II fled Protestant England. The British people maintained their liberty, including from religion. The British people chose to retained the Monarchy, yet with the requirement that Parliament assume greater full power at the expense of the Monarchy, further confined by the English Bill of Rights. Unlike the protesters in Bahrain, the inhabitants of Great Britain expect an more equitable distribution of wealth, a blunt power-grab which would have undermined their rights as Englishmen.
The people of Bahrain have have failed to define for themselves the proper role that government should fill in their lives. Without clear designs for the institution to replace the Khalifah, the Bahraini people have only their animosity for the present conditions to united them, a tenuous alliance. Divided loyalties along sectarian lines and confused commitments to improved working conditions and more "people power" have all enabled the Khalifah Monarchy to restore order through Shi'a dominance, Sunni subservience, and growing sectarian unrest.
Bahraini protests have failed at the onslaught of the Monarchy's military opposition, including support form the neighboring state of Saudi Arabia.
In addition to the superior firepower of the state, The conflicting demands of freedom-fighting protesters has betrayed the cause of failure:
1. More equal distribution of wealth
2. Less unemployment
3. More parliamentary power
(Source: LA Times "'Arab Spring' wilts on one isle." April 15, 2011, A1.)
Missing from this list of demands is recognition of natural rights, the chief service expected from government.
More equal distribution of wealth is tyranny of the less-entitled against the more-propertied. Tyranny in any form is evil, even if wielded by the hands of more people.
It is not the responsibility of the State to provide work for its citizens. Concentrating power into more democratic institutions does not guarantee individual liberty, the necessary condition for individual, free-market prosperity.
Beyond the conflicting demands of the uprising population, marginalized Shiites in Bahrain demand an end to the Monarchy which has condemned them to second-class status for so long. Initially willing to work with the embittered Sunnis, the currently empowered-Shi'as have fearfully distanced themselves from gathering protests.
Revolutions do not succeed in the wake of rapid wipe-out, withdrawal, and redress. The sectarian divide over the alacrity of change within Bahrain has been played out before. Consider the Great Britain's Glorious Revolution of 1688, in which the nation's Parliament invited the Ruling Monarch's next-of-kin to rule the country in the place of Stuart Monarch James the Second, a devout Catholic who was slowly reinstating sectarian hegemony over the United Kingdom. William III of Orange married into a coregency with James II's daughter Mary. Because of his irreversible unpopularity Catholic James II fled Protestant England. The British people maintained their liberty, including from religion. The British people chose to retained the Monarchy, yet with the requirement that Parliament assume greater full power at the expense of the Monarchy, further confined by the English Bill of Rights. Unlike the protesters in Bahrain, the inhabitants of Great Britain expect an more equitable distribution of wealth, a blunt power-grab which would have undermined their rights as Englishmen.
The people of Bahrain have have failed to define for themselves the proper role that government should fill in their lives. Without clear designs for the institution to replace the Khalifah, the Bahraini people have only their animosity for the present conditions to united them, a tenuous alliance. Divided loyalties along sectarian lines and confused commitments to improved working conditions and more "people power" have all enabled the Khalifah Monarchy to restore order through Shi'a dominance, Sunni subservience, and growing sectarian unrest.
Love the Group, Love your Fellow Man, Love the One who Can
Can a person love a group of people?
Love is an action. It is not a feeling, a hope, a hype, or a case of happenstance.
Love is directing positive regard so that another person understands what he or she is receiving.
I cannot say that I love the human race. "The Human Race" is an abstraction, a set of characteristics lumped together to identify some unreal entity.
I cannot even say "I love you". Words are not enough. How I know that I love is that I show that I love.
I cannot show the human race, the black race, the Asian people, the city of Torrance, Lawndale, London, or Paris, that I love it/them.
Love is an action, a commitment, a charitable connection to a Person.
I can love Him without reserve. Through me, then, He can love the whole world!
Love is an action. It is not a feeling, a hope, a hype, or a case of happenstance.
Love is directing positive regard so that another person understands what he or she is receiving.
I cannot say that I love the human race. "The Human Race" is an abstraction, a set of characteristics lumped together to identify some unreal entity.
I cannot even say "I love you". Words are not enough. How I know that I love is that I show that I love.
I cannot show the human race, the black race, the Asian people, the city of Torrance, Lawndale, London, or Paris, that I love it/them.
Love is an action, a commitment, a charitable connection to a Person.
I can love Him without reserve. Through me, then, He can love the whole world!
The Goldstone Report and Retraction: Damage Done and Undone
Following his assignment to investigate the 2008-2009 Gaza War waged by Israel, South African jurist Richard Goldstone issued a damaging Report, in which he invidiously charged that Israeli troops purposely targeted civilians during military forays of 2009 into Gaza.
Despite the incendiary charges of this report, the state of Israel, the Prince with God that endured struggle with the Almighty, has endured despite the reproach of hostile states and erroneous denunciations from international organizations.
The Jewish State has overcome military threats to its existence, from the attempted military coup by the surrounding Arab states in 1948 to the Yom Kippur War of 1973. Israel also weathered the storm of international opinion, including the U.N.'s racist demonization of Zionism in a 2001 summit in South Africa, and now the Goldstone Report.
As a silver lining in a dark cloud of denunciation, Report's mendacious claims galvanized the Jewish State to further fine-tune future military operations. Besides the United States, Israel is the only nation in the world which compromises armed defensive combat by warning civilians in enemy states of their approach. Whether by dropping leaflets or sending text messages to Palestinian residents, Israels has followed strict procedures to ensure the least possible loss of life.
Fortunately, Richard Goldstone earlier this month issued a (tepid) Retraction of his infamous Report . Mitigating the damning substance of his previous Report, Goldstone's Retraction underlines the extensive steps taken by Israel to safeguard Israeli and Palestinian by-standers caught in the terrorist cross-fire of Hamas and Fatah. Furthermore, the Retraction has also emphasizes the deliberate failure of the Palestinian leadership to investigate war crimes. Most importantly, though, the Retraction has reminded the world of Hamas' deliberate neglect and endangerment of their own people.
Having validated the humane and democratic nature of the Jewish State, the Goldstone Retraction exposes the illogical and immoral nature of accusations levied against the Jewish State by international bodies, especially the UN, whose organization accords to terrorist states and dictatorial regimes the authority to pass judgment on the Israel government and military.
Even though Goldstone's Reaction does not go far enough in promoting greater comity among the nations on behalf of the Jewish State, it does underscore the resilience of the Israelis to defend themselves and undo the damage of baseless international calumny.
Despite the incendiary charges of this report, the state of Israel, the Prince with God that endured struggle with the Almighty, has endured despite the reproach of hostile states and erroneous denunciations from international organizations.
The Jewish State has overcome military threats to its existence, from the attempted military coup by the surrounding Arab states in 1948 to the Yom Kippur War of 1973. Israel also weathered the storm of international opinion, including the U.N.'s racist demonization of Zionism in a 2001 summit in South Africa, and now the Goldstone Report.
As a silver lining in a dark cloud of denunciation, Report's mendacious claims galvanized the Jewish State to further fine-tune future military operations. Besides the United States, Israel is the only nation in the world which compromises armed defensive combat by warning civilians in enemy states of their approach. Whether by dropping leaflets or sending text messages to Palestinian residents, Israels has followed strict procedures to ensure the least possible loss of life.
Fortunately, Richard Goldstone earlier this month issued a (tepid) Retraction of his infamous Report . Mitigating the damning substance of his previous Report, Goldstone's Retraction underlines the extensive steps taken by Israel to safeguard Israeli and Palestinian by-standers caught in the terrorist cross-fire of Hamas and Fatah. Furthermore, the Retraction has also emphasizes the deliberate failure of the Palestinian leadership to investigate war crimes. Most importantly, though, the Retraction has reminded the world of Hamas' deliberate neglect and endangerment of their own people.
Having validated the humane and democratic nature of the Jewish State, the Goldstone Retraction exposes the illogical and immoral nature of accusations levied against the Jewish State by international bodies, especially the UN, whose organization accords to terrorist states and dictatorial regimes the authority to pass judgment on the Israel government and military.
Even though Goldstone's Reaction does not go far enough in promoting greater comity among the nations on behalf of the Jewish State, it does underscore the resilience of the Israelis to defend themselves and undo the damage of baseless international calumny.
Obama Campaigning while the US is Burning
Nothing says hubris like declaring one's candidacy for reelection in the face of 39% approval, two (or three) wars over seas, exploding public debt, and declining prestige for the homeland, both at home and abroad.
By now, though, the United States should be used to the overweening vanity of President Obama.
At least he is (subtly) honest about the nature of his policy decisions. Whether he goes to war or not (or is he at war already?) in Libya, whether he chooses to cut another trillion or hold off a trillion more in cuts, whether he allows his wife to micromanage the life-skills of school-age children, whether he permits the government to micromanage health care, welfare, and American free enterprise: all will come down to whether each outcome throws one more sop to the liberal base which he has so abruptly spurned over the last two years.
Obama's fight for his political future is a fight that the United States simply cannot let him win. His triumph will be the United States' defeat.
As a constitutional law professor in Chicago, he had world enough and time to debate the theoretical right and wrong of government action. As Commander-in-Chief, he failed to take decisive action in the face of few facts and little precedent. An inexperienced scholar, he had no experience of his own to fall back on. Coupled with the essentially appeasing and accommodating nature of Modern Liberalism, he arrived at decisions with such unrelenting slowness, it is little wonder that this nation still struggles from beneath the Great Recession and Wars ending Nowhere.
Only in the monstrous growth of government, at the expense of individual liberty, has the President been resolute. His betrayal of this nation's ideals and his indecisive leadership both betray his unfitness for the Office of President of the United States of America.
By now, though, the United States should be used to the overweening vanity of President Obama.
At least he is (subtly) honest about the nature of his policy decisions. Whether he goes to war or not (or is he at war already?) in Libya, whether he chooses to cut another trillion or hold off a trillion more in cuts, whether he allows his wife to micromanage the life-skills of school-age children, whether he permits the government to micromanage health care, welfare, and American free enterprise: all will come down to whether each outcome throws one more sop to the liberal base which he has so abruptly spurned over the last two years.
Obama's fight for his political future is a fight that the United States simply cannot let him win. His triumph will be the United States' defeat.
As a constitutional law professor in Chicago, he had world enough and time to debate the theoretical right and wrong of government action. As Commander-in-Chief, he failed to take decisive action in the face of few facts and little precedent. An inexperienced scholar, he had no experience of his own to fall back on. Coupled with the essentially appeasing and accommodating nature of Modern Liberalism, he arrived at decisions with such unrelenting slowness, it is little wonder that this nation still struggles from beneath the Great Recession and Wars ending Nowhere.
Only in the monstrous growth of government, at the expense of individual liberty, has the President been resolute. His betrayal of this nation's ideals and his indecisive leadership both betray his unfitness for the Office of President of the United States of America.
Stumping (or Dumping) Donald Trump for President
Donald Trump, (Reborn) Real Estate Magnate cum Reality TV Star, is flirting with a 2012 Presidential Run.
Well, at least he gives the impression that he has any business commenting on the nation's needs and ills.
He made quite a splash at the CPAC 2011 Convention earlier this year. He's bold, he talks tough, he knows what he believes. And he's a remade billionaire.
He also rants on and on about the Obama's birth certificate (!).
Because he is more self-parody than substance gives him the leeway to go off on nonsensical, petty-divisive matters. When he sucks up the spotlight, he's refreshing with brazen bluntness.
Yet is a questionable hairline, lots of money, a headline run at a Conservative convocation, and a lot of attitude enough for a man to be President, let alone run for the office?
Honesty and out-spokenness, both welcome traits in a future commander-in-chief, need to be based in a long-term commitment to service. Looking past the obvious concerns about a possible Trump Presidency, let us consider more probing issue regarding this matter.
Trump's Corporate leadership (his trump card, if you will) is a marvel of efficiency. As CEO, the Donald calls the shots, sets business policy, hires and fires at will, and makes necessary changes all of sudden.
As for accountability, his efforts have always been subject to a board of directors, who may recompense him or remove as they see fit.
The efficacy of the business model could not subsist in Washington D.C. The Constitution designed the Federal Goverment to be limited and inefficient, nothing like a private corporation.
Mr. Trump must accept that, as President, Legislators in the House and Senate would not be directly subject to his directives. If legislators choose not to approve his program, he cannot simply fire them, as he is accustomed on his reality TV shows. Better yet, Trump would do well to consider the conciliatory style of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. Christie talks the talk, walks the walk, yet works with the opposition to accomplish as much he can for the citizens of the Garden State.
In order words, can Mr. Trump work as a team player in the reality show, which is the United States Government? He has the year ahead to persuade (a critical role for any President) the American voters that he can work with the inherently dysfunctional and protracted system of Beltway Politics.
So far, though, playing to the camera and questioning President Obama's citizenship will not reveal, let alone develop, these crucial Presidential qualities. Trump can start getting serious by making his candidacy official, or at least be candid enough to admit that he has no intention of running. Either way, he won't be compromising his skills as showman.
Well, at least he gives the impression that he has any business commenting on the nation's needs and ills.
He made quite a splash at the CPAC 2011 Convention earlier this year. He's bold, he talks tough, he knows what he believes. And he's a remade billionaire.
He also rants on and on about the Obama's birth certificate (!).
Because he is more self-parody than substance gives him the leeway to go off on nonsensical, petty-divisive matters. When he sucks up the spotlight, he's refreshing with brazen bluntness.
Yet is a questionable hairline, lots of money, a headline run at a Conservative convocation, and a lot of attitude enough for a man to be President, let alone run for the office?
Honesty and out-spokenness, both welcome traits in a future commander-in-chief, need to be based in a long-term commitment to service. Looking past the obvious concerns about a possible Trump Presidency, let us consider more probing issue regarding this matter.
Trump's Corporate leadership (his trump card, if you will) is a marvel of efficiency. As CEO, the Donald calls the shots, sets business policy, hires and fires at will, and makes necessary changes all of sudden.
As for accountability, his efforts have always been subject to a board of directors, who may recompense him or remove as they see fit.
The efficacy of the business model could not subsist in Washington D.C. The Constitution designed the Federal Goverment to be limited and inefficient, nothing like a private corporation.
Mr. Trump must accept that, as President, Legislators in the House and Senate would not be directly subject to his directives. If legislators choose not to approve his program, he cannot simply fire them, as he is accustomed on his reality TV shows. Better yet, Trump would do well to consider the conciliatory style of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. Christie talks the talk, walks the walk, yet works with the opposition to accomplish as much he can for the citizens of the Garden State.
In order words, can Mr. Trump work as a team player in the reality show, which is the United States Government? He has the year ahead to persuade (a critical role for any President) the American voters that he can work with the inherently dysfunctional and protracted system of Beltway Politics.
So far, though, playing to the camera and questioning President Obama's citizenship will not reveal, let alone develop, these crucial Presidential qualities. Trump can start getting serious by making his candidacy official, or at least be candid enough to admit that he has no intention of running. Either way, he won't be compromising his skills as showman.
Czech President: Taking a Pen leads to the State Pen?
President Vaclav Klaus of the Czech Republic visited Chile.
During Pinera's address at their joint news conference, President Klaus took the signing pen which was provided for him. He brought it below the field of vision, then slipped it into his left-hand pocket.
A President takes a pen. That's right, and it's a YouTube sensation. . .(?)
Let us forget about the brave efforts of the Chilean people and their government in rescuing the trapped miners, surviving many months of isolation from family and friends. Forget about the efforts of the Chilean people and their government to reemerge from massive earthquakes that threatened the internal stability of the rising Pacific Rim nation.
Forget also about the Capitalist upsurge of free-market power which has lifted the Czech Republic of Velvet Revolution fame from slowly-dying socialist state to dynamic market powerhouse.
Let us rather fixate on the taking of a pen at an innocuous state gathering of two trading partners.
Of course, in the course of condemning this head of state from a meeting of two nations who do not figure prominently in the pressing foreign policy concerns of the United States, let us also neglect to mention that it is customary for visiting dignitaries to keep pens, paper, pads, and other stationery items as keepsakes from their diplomatic envoys.
Truly, in the case of Czech President Vaclav Klaus, the pen may lead indeed lead to a stint in the State Pen!
During Pinera's address at their joint news conference, President Klaus took the signing pen which was provided for him. He brought it below the field of vision, then slipped it into his left-hand pocket.
A President takes a pen. That's right, and it's a YouTube sensation. . .(?)
Let us forget about the brave efforts of the Chilean people and their government in rescuing the trapped miners, surviving many months of isolation from family and friends. Forget about the efforts of the Chilean people and their government to reemerge from massive earthquakes that threatened the internal stability of the rising Pacific Rim nation.
Forget also about the Capitalist upsurge of free-market power which has lifted the Czech Republic of Velvet Revolution fame from slowly-dying socialist state to dynamic market powerhouse.
Let us rather fixate on the taking of a pen at an innocuous state gathering of two trading partners.
Of course, in the course of condemning this head of state from a meeting of two nations who do not figure prominently in the pressing foreign policy concerns of the United States, let us also neglect to mention that it is customary for visiting dignitaries to keep pens, paper, pads, and other stationery items as keepsakes from their diplomatic envoys.
Truly, in the case of Czech President Vaclav Klaus, the pen may lead indeed lead to a stint in the State Pen!
Iraqi Youth Protests: Revolution or Repression in the Middle East?
A Reflection on "Iraq Crushing Youths' Efforst to Be Heard" New York Times, April 14, 2011.
With every Arab country that sinks into chaos giving birth to a new order, the median age slides with it.
In Tunisia, the average age is 30.
In Egypt, 24.
In Iraq, with a media age of 21, 40% of the people are 14 and under. The Arab Spring is springing forth from the young, the most numerous, connected, and vocal constituency.
Youthful enthusiasm is not afraid to question the old, repressive ways of sclerotic, tyrannical regimes. The young have no qualms about changing the present order, an order which for them is basically new since they have endured it for very little time. Coupled with their openness to innovation and their the near-delusional exubernace of juvenile invincibility, there is little wonder that the newer generation in Arab states throughout the Middle East are rising up, demanding change.
According to Tim Arongo, the older generation of Iraqis are still dominated by the bitterness of sectarian schism between Sunni and Shi'a, because Saddam Hussein's repressive rule, and the lingering fears of challenging state control which have taken captive the hearts of many Iraqis.
In addition to the slow reluctance of the aged to let go of the past, there is the shaky grasp which the younger generation has on the present, and the unknown which is the future.
Yet appreciating the past is crucial to any subsequent lasting reform in the Middle East.
The photograph capturing the convocation of youthful protestors on page A9 features Hussein al-Najar donning a black beret with a red star wearing a shirt bearing the celebrated photo of Ernesto "Che" Guevara. It is disturbing to ponder that the youth of Iraq would emulate the bloody Communist coups of a hack-medical student turned sadistic killer, who helped plunged an island nation into impoverished tyranny. His wicked example, if the harbinger of regime change to come, will only spell doom for the long-sought hopes of freedom and
In this jarring ignorance lies the fundamental problem with youthful élan transformed into revolutionary rage. The energy to effect overthrow of the established order cannot establish a stable society that respects the rights of all. Administrative wisdom requires time, dedication, experience. It is not enough to hate the present oppressor. Revolutionaries must exercise dedicated diligence in the shaping of their nation's successor.
With every Arab country that sinks into chaos giving birth to a new order, the median age slides with it.
In Tunisia, the average age is 30.
In Egypt, 24.
In Iraq, with a media age of 21, 40% of the people are 14 and under. The Arab Spring is springing forth from the young, the most numerous, connected, and vocal constituency.
Youthful enthusiasm is not afraid to question the old, repressive ways of sclerotic, tyrannical regimes. The young have no qualms about changing the present order, an order which for them is basically new since they have endured it for very little time. Coupled with their openness to innovation and their the near-delusional exubernace of juvenile invincibility, there is little wonder that the newer generation in Arab states throughout the Middle East are rising up, demanding change.
According to Tim Arongo, the older generation of Iraqis are still dominated by the bitterness of sectarian schism between Sunni and Shi'a, because Saddam Hussein's repressive rule, and the lingering fears of challenging state control which have taken captive the hearts of many Iraqis.
In addition to the slow reluctance of the aged to let go of the past, there is the shaky grasp which the younger generation has on the present, and the unknown which is the future.
Yet appreciating the past is crucial to any subsequent lasting reform in the Middle East.
The photograph capturing the convocation of youthful protestors on page A9 features Hussein al-Najar donning a black beret with a red star wearing a shirt bearing the celebrated photo of Ernesto "Che" Guevara. It is disturbing to ponder that the youth of Iraq would emulate the bloody Communist coups of a hack-medical student turned sadistic killer, who helped plunged an island nation into impoverished tyranny. His wicked example, if the harbinger of regime change to come, will only spell doom for the long-sought hopes of freedom and
In this jarring ignorance lies the fundamental problem with youthful élan transformed into revolutionary rage. The energy to effect overthrow of the established order cannot establish a stable society that respects the rights of all. Administrative wisdom requires time, dedication, experience. It is not enough to hate the present oppressor. Revolutionaries must exercise dedicated diligence in the shaping of their nation's successor.
Friday, April 15, 2011
Forgiveness and the Unforgiving Media
The newspaper does not forgive.
The media hound people for every wrong thought and action.
They publish; a man perishes.
The Press gives itself full permission to expose people's folly and perversion.
I think that it's voyeuristic. It's immoral.
If a man does wrong, let him be held accountable.
If he made right on the situation, then leave him alone. The Press has no right to drag up the past against a man who has fallen, has gotten back up, and has made better of himself.
The media hound people for every wrong thought and action.
They publish; a man perishes.
The Press gives itself full permission to expose people's folly and perversion.
I think that it's voyeuristic. It's immoral.
If a man does wrong, let him be held accountable.
If he made right on the situation, then leave him alone. The Press has no right to drag up the past against a man who has fallen, has gotten back up, and has made better of himself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)