On happenings in Egypt

Alright, first political rant in a while. Bear with me if the language isn't up the par with some of my previous posts.

Alright, if you've been under a rock for the past couple of weeks, a revolution has started in the Islamic world. It started with the overthrow of the government in Tunisia. Things seem to be progressing well there, and I have high hopes. But their revolution was quickly eclipsed by uprisings in Egypt. The reason that Egypt gets more coverage than Tunisia, aside from the population and strategic importance, is that more people in the US know basically where Egypt is. Yeah, we're a special people aren't we?

Back on point, Egypt for the past...half century at least, has been ruled by strong willed presidents who have taken on the power of dictator. The most famous being Nassar, but most recently Mubarak. Dictators provide stability in a part of the world that doesn't know stability without a strong hand. The western idea of democracy and country is still a relatively new concept in the middle east. History has shown that the area goes to chaos quickly when a strong leader is removed, or a strong stabilizing government. Be it empire or monarchy or dictator, strong leaders have been the only way to provide stability.

The cost of this stability, however, is what are thought of in the western world as basic human rights. The idea of democracy is so entrenched in our way of thinking that it is hard for a westerner to see things through a different set of glasses. What we don't realize though, is that it has taken over 300 years for us to reach this state. Less than 100 years ago, most of the region was ruled by one of the European empires, before that various other empires. Egypt stands out as being relatively independent for a good chunk of that time. Left to their own string of dictators.

Am I saying that revolution is doomed to fail in Egypt? Far from it. I think of all the countries in the middle east that Egypt has the best chance of forming a stable democracy. It has a lot of western educated professionals, western influence is stronger than in most countries (even if it is mostly due to tourism), and it has a history that almost predates time itself. It has seen more changes than most other parts of the world could imagine.

However, revolution is always a dangerous proposition. Iran was an extremely westernized country prior to their revolution in the 1970's. Now it is one of the most isolated and feared and hated countries in the world. The strongest opposition to Mubarak is an Islamic radical group that would turn back the clock in Egypt and make it another Iran. Democracy is more than just mob rule, though mob rule is the easiest thing to achieve. They would more than likely set up a theocracy in the guise of democracy. Another set of dictators, but with seemingly popular backing.

How will things work out? I don't know. I personally would like to see a British style parliamentary system set up with an American style constitution in place. A set of checks and balances set up to ensure long term stability. But level heads need to prevail. Inciting a riot is easy, creating a proper government is much harder.

If you haven't figure out yet, yes, I do believe in a distinct right and wrong and that some cultures and governments are better than others. Relativism has it's place, but is highly overrated and used by western culture today.

Mistakes

"Everyone makes mistakes. Nobody's perfect." Those are two of my least favorite phrases in the English language. Yes, people make mistakes, that's just a given. But people who use it as an excuse for not attempting perfection really piss me off. However, that isn't the point of this entry. Smart people, wise people, those who try hardest for a goal make mistakes that dwarf those of normal people. It is part of what makes them great and one of their biggest weaknesses. That's why they must try even harder to think things through, especially those with influence. And now we're getting to the main point that I am trying to make with this entry. I've been mulling the ideas for several days now, thinking of parallels with the past and how we can avoid mistakes in the present and future.

Throughout history, the smartest, the most influential have been the ones to make mistakes that set progress back for years. Look at the founding of the United States. This country was founded by one of the most exclusive brain trusts to ever attempt to found a country. Unlike the monarchies, oligarchies, and tyrannies of the past, they had the foresight to frame a republic with a document that is still relevant over 200 years later. They set forth rights, duties, and a balanced government that was only imagined beforehand. It was a beautiful thing and the Constitution is still one of the most perfect documents in the history of the world. But even the true geniuses who founded this country were unable to imagine an economy without slavery. They accepted a great injustice for the sake of stability and economics. They sacrificed what was right, what a majority of the framers saw as a wrong, for the sake of holding onto the power and economy that slavery fueled. In less than 100 years the country was fractured over the issue, half the country unable to foresee an economy without clinging to the past, the other pushing the economy and future forward. The right and wrong of the issue was secondary justification.

The economy pushed by the Northern states had its own problems. The slavery was by circumstance and less formalized, but it was a step in the right direction. It was far from perfect, and is the direct ancestor of the problems we face today. The coal and oil powered industries that pushed the economy of the future are now 100 years out of date. The current powers that be cling to the past because it is simpler and they can't imagine an economy not driven by gas powered cars and coal burning power. They hide behind fear of instability that pushing forward will bring. Cost and difficulty are the excuses people hide behind, refusing to acknowledge the rightness of change. It isn't that the people in power are stupid, they are smart, but they are making the same mistakes that the founding fathers made with slavery. Yes, the attitudes are changing, but still people, smart people, cling to the past.

There are other examples that can be made, but that is the parallel that stuck in my head as most appropriate. Smart, intelligent people, refuse heath care reform because they don't see the necessity. Financial geniuses don't see the problems with the banks because they are blinded by their own attempts to cling to power and wealth. They aren't idiots, they are just fools. Progress needs to be made and what is right must be done for the sake of everyone. Those who hold back progress and who use their influence to scare people into voting against their self interest are as close to evil as really exist in the world.

Too long without writing

It's been too long since I've written anything here. A full month without a blog post and the new year is well under way. I decided to forgo the long and rambling one that no one would give a damn about because seriously, I know no one enjoys reading the reminiscing of a loon. But finally things have come to a head and more needs to be said than has been. This will probably ramble, and might not be coherent, but here it goes.

Last week the Supreme court overturned over a hundred years of precedent and ruled that corporations could donate without limits to political campaigns. They justified this by arguing that it was an unjust limit on free speech to force limits on donations. This is possibly the worst decision the high court has handed down since Bowers-v-Hardwick. I am against limits on the first amendment more than anyone I know, however this is a foolish argument to make. It places political office up to the highest bidder and means that politicians will jockey even more for big corporate donations. We might as well just give up democracy right now. The argument however is incomplete. If corporations have that much of a right to free speech, then how are the limits on language and nudity on network television justified? Can corporations now make false claims about their products because of their freedom of speech? A lie is a lie and corruption is corruption.

The court has always ruled that certain limits on free speech must be placed for the order of a well run society. Making terroristic threats, shouting fire in a crowded building, inciting a riot...all of these have been deemed reasonable limits on freedom of speech. Allowing unlimited corporate donations is more dangerous to the stability of the country than any of those other 'reasonable' limits.

In other news, the man who sold dowsing rods to the army and Iraqi government as bomb detectors has an arrest warrant out for him. Yup, it isn't a story that has gotten that much publicity here, but it is one that needs to be told. A guy sold 84 million dollars worth of bomb detecting wires to the army and was going to get away with it. He still has the backing of the Iraqi government, even though there is no proof that the dowsing rods work. And there is evidence of bombs going off in areas that have been 'swept' by the detectors. If you believe in dowsing, you're an idiot. The fact that the government has spent that much money and lost so many lives on a load of horseshit should piss people off more than anything. But instead the news would rather cover Sarah Palin's keynote speech at the tea party convention, or American Idol. Way to go news people. You know what's important.

Also recently, a lot has been made about Ted Kennedy's former senate seat going to a Republican. Many were surprised at this and others have been making a big deal about the backlash of the people against the raving liberal policies of the Obama administration and the Democrat controlled congress. Once again these people are making a mountain out of a molehill. The fact is simple: the woman that was the Democratic candidate in the special election was a bitch. She rubbed people the wrong way, pissed people off, and came off as generally a snob in a part of the country known for snobbery. Her track record was one filled with foolish mistakes and idiotic tendencies. I mean, the woman wouldn't even shake hands at her own rally and gave off the air that it was foolish for her to think about standing out in the cold to shake hands with the little people. It was simply a case of the wrong person being nominated and no one willing to stand up and say that. She was a fool and people are stupid for not seeing that.

Alright, not sure how much of that actually held together, but there it is. Feels good to put something out there again. Can feel my mind atrophy when I go so long without. Perhaps the bug will hit again soon. My fingers are crossed for such at least.

Thoughts on off year elections and Fort Hood

Trying to get back into the habit of writing while a topic is relevant. Might take some time and some getting used to, but here it goes. This past Tuesday, in a "shocking" reversal from last year, several important elections went to Republican candidates. The media and the Left seemed to be surprised at this turn out, and the Right has seen it as furthering their agenda. Both sides are going to the wrong conclusions. The situation would be humorous if it wasn't such serious business. Heads must remain level, and the conclusions must be drawn in small steps.

Let's start with the Left's reaction. They have tried to play it off as nothing, but the way they say things reveals their true feelings. They are scared that after finally regaining control of congress and the white house that they will lose it even quicker. They will move to abandon principles that seem to raise the public ire, and what little spine they had left will vanish. The Left suffers from a major disbelief that the center of the country is more to the right than it actually is. They were elected on a platform of ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and on health care reform. And they have fallen through, seen as dragging their feet, and as a complete failure. Instead of focusing on their principles, standing for something, they sell out the principles that they were elected on. Democrats in congress fight among themselves like rats over the last scrap of cheese in amaze. And then they try to compromise in the best traditions of republican government, but compromise is impossible when one side is unwilling to move. The Right simply opposes anything the Left puts forth and the Left refuses to take the initiative and push something through in line with what the people actually want. The half assed health care reform that is being put forth is worse than not doing anything. Make radical changes, that is what you were elected for. Don't be scared of it because someone like Glen Beck is against it. Contrary to what he wants to believe, he is not representative of the majority of America. There is not a "silent majority" that opposes everything you are doing. You just have to have the backbone to do something.

The Right on the other hand is claiming a victory for their principles. There is no evidence of that what so ever. But there has been a backlash against the Democrats which they have been able to capitalize on in a very very small way. The petty infighting and ineffectiveness of the Left in congress and across the country has done more to harm the Left than anything the Right has ever done. Just they understand enough of how to capitalize on their opponents mistakes. The Right is much better at seeming effective, which is what swayed votes their way this time. If the Left could make something happen, something that is felt on the streets, something that is for the good of the country and the world, then that would squelch the backlash.

Now for the much touchier subject, the shootings at Fort Hood. It is a tragedy of grave proportions. But it should not be used as a lynch pin for more racism. The fact is the man who did the shooting was an doctor and a major, educated and a career army officer. An American citizen who had served his country for years. No evidence that I have heard is anywhere near proof that he was a Muslim extremist, sleeper agent, or anything of the like. He was an army man who lost it. That is what the focus should be on. The lives that were lost are heartbreaking. But the backlash that will follow in public perception and extremist media is a disgrace to everything that those in the military supposedly fight for.