As I watch the 24/7, wall to wall coverage, of the street protests coming out of Egypt, I frankly do not know what to think. Is this the "real deal", an event which will have profound lasting effects in Egypt and the Middle East, or a re-run of the Iranian protests of 2009? You will recall that "historic" event - endless television coverage and analysis, predictions of big change, but ultimately nothing. The protests ended, and the government remained intact, probably even more repressive than it was before. There was then in Iran as there is now in Egypt an emerging savior - Mir Hossein Mousavi in Iran, Mohamed ElBaradei in Egypt. There was then in Iran as there is now in Egypt, criticism of the Obama administration from progressives for its not doing more to support the protest and protesters. Not exactly "regime change" a la George Bush and Iraq, but not exactly staying out of it either.
Unlike the Iranian uprising however the Egyptian one is a lot more politicized in the West. No-one in the West liked Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs, so if they fell, a unanimous "good riddance". Whoever replaced them could not have been more hostile to the West as that regime was and is. The devil we know in Iran could in no way be better than the devil we do not know. In Egypt it is however different. There are many who are very concerned that if Mubarak falls, Western interests are in real jeopardy. Egypt is an important and "stable" (so we thought) American ally. There is obvious concern in Israel where an unstable Egypt, with Muslim Brotherhood as part of its government, cannot be good news. Other voices however are decidedly much more optimistic and even joyful at this turn of events. "Change in repressive societies is good" and "we should embrace instability" says Anne Appelbaum in Slate. That may be all well and good for Ms Appelbaum, who like me, lives thousands of miles from Egypt. I am not so sure that Egyptians who are currently guarding their homes from looters and protecting themselves from violence are embracing instability with such enthusiasm.
I do not know of course how this episode will end. Will it end with a whimper or will it be more meaningful and lasting? If meaningful, will it have a positive or negative meaning? Time I guess will tell.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
THE STATE OF THE UNION SPEECH
What struck me most as I sat through the somewhat dull but informative State of the Union speech by President Obama was how much President Obama has transformed himself in the last two years. The polarizing, divisive and narcissitic rhetoric of the 2008 election campaign and the two subsequent years was gone. The language of "I am the change you have been waiting for", "I will restore America's reputation in the world", "I will repair the damage that 8 years of Bush have caused", "I will clean out the corruption of Washington" and so on, is no more. Instead the focus was on the greatness of American innovation, America as the "beacon of light" to the rest of the world, the greatness of the military (even to the extent of urging colleges to allow army recruiters back on campus), the will to defeat the terrorists, the importance of small business and higher education, refocusing on the three r"s, reducing the deficit and working together, Republicans, Democrats and Independents. There was no more blaming, and apologizing for America. It was a speech typical of what one might hear at a university convocation address from an Honorary Doctorate recipient. It was aimed at the middle class, the well educated, and the ambitious. It has positioned President Obama for the 2012 election. The President clearly has decided to combine his strong intelligence, and enormous rhetorical skills, with main stream American values. This will be a tough combination for Republicans to beat in 2012. What remains to be seen is how the more "progressive" elements of American society will view the President's metamorphosis, and more interestingly whether the new rhetoric will be matched by the President's legislative agenda.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
The messages are moderating on cable news
The departure of Keith Olbermann from MSNBC is consistent with the trend towards moderation which I have been observing on the three cable news networks which I regularly watch - CNN, MSNBC, and FOX. This has been going on for some months, but it accelerated, and understandably so, after the Tucson tragedy. Polarizing and unbalanced analysis is no longer fashionable nor entertaining. And in this respect, few commentators were as polarizing as Keith Olbermann. One should revisit his rant against Senator Scott Brown if evidence of this is necessary.
Take CNN. During the last Presidential election it was crystal clear who the CNN commentators were supporting. They were fully behind President Obama and the Democratic ticket. More recently, however, the tone at CNN has changed. They are making a far greater effort to provide balanced coverage of American politics. In this they are led in particular by John King and Anderson Cooper, two persons who I have always admired at CNN. Witness for example Anderson Cooper's grilling of Rep Steve Cohen who recently compared the GOP's opposition to health care with the Nazi's "big lie" tactics. Cooper was unrelenting in his tearing apart of Cohen's pathetic efforts to explain himself for his use of such violent and polarizing rhetoric, noting that this was not the first time Cohen has engaged in such theater, while at the same time decrying the lack of civility in public discourse.
Then there is FOX, a network which many people consider the most unbalanced of the three. Funnily enough, when I question some of those who strongly hold this view they admit that they do not subscribe to FOX and never watch it. Their views however are shaped by stories they read about FOX and perhaps by the efforts, long ago abandoned by the WH, to isolate and marginalize FOX. I watch some programming on FOX, depending on the show time. I usually catch some of Bill O'Reilly, Hannity and Greta Van Susteren, rarely Glenn Beck. The thing about FOX is yes, they are a conservative/Republican news voice, but not exclusively so. They regularly have liberal and opposing views expressed, either by regular contributors or "one of" interviews. One can note Juan Williams, Democrat Bob Beckel, Alan Colmes and others among this group. They have Charles Krauthammer, who is, in my opinion, one of the smartest political analysts around. They also have experienced news people like Brit Hume and Chris Wallace. That FOX is losing its image as a crazy, marginal, illegitimate news network is becoming evident by the increased willingness of liberal favourites like Jon Stewart and Whoopi Goldberg to appear on FOX, and the impending interview of President Obama by Bill O'Reilly. FOX is becoming more mainstream, as is CNN. It however is moving from the right to a more middle point, with CNN moving from the left.
Then there is MSNBC. It has the most moving yet to do. As far as I can tell there are simply no alternative views expressed on MSNBC. Its motto is that it "leans forward"; by that I take it that it sees its mandate as being the progressive voice on television. That is fine if that is the role it wants to play; but it cannot have any pretense of balance. It also has to face the fact that ideological based shows generally are only preaching to the converted. Few others are watching. And with the American base moving to a more conservative position (as I believe President Obama himself is doing), the numbers of the converted for MSNBC are diminishing. Perhaps with a new owner and the departure of Olbermann, MSNBC will revisit what it wants to be and where it wants to go. It is after all a "for profit" commercial entity, and if the profits are diminishing, then the script will have to change. It will be interesting to watch MSNBC to see what happens, post Keith.
Take CNN. During the last Presidential election it was crystal clear who the CNN commentators were supporting. They were fully behind President Obama and the Democratic ticket. More recently, however, the tone at CNN has changed. They are making a far greater effort to provide balanced coverage of American politics. In this they are led in particular by John King and Anderson Cooper, two persons who I have always admired at CNN. Witness for example Anderson Cooper's grilling of Rep Steve Cohen who recently compared the GOP's opposition to health care with the Nazi's "big lie" tactics. Cooper was unrelenting in his tearing apart of Cohen's pathetic efforts to explain himself for his use of such violent and polarizing rhetoric, noting that this was not the first time Cohen has engaged in such theater, while at the same time decrying the lack of civility in public discourse.
Then there is FOX, a network which many people consider the most unbalanced of the three. Funnily enough, when I question some of those who strongly hold this view they admit that they do not subscribe to FOX and never watch it. Their views however are shaped by stories they read about FOX and perhaps by the efforts, long ago abandoned by the WH, to isolate and marginalize FOX. I watch some programming on FOX, depending on the show time. I usually catch some of Bill O'Reilly, Hannity and Greta Van Susteren, rarely Glenn Beck. The thing about FOX is yes, they are a conservative/Republican news voice, but not exclusively so. They regularly have liberal and opposing views expressed, either by regular contributors or "one of" interviews. One can note Juan Williams, Democrat Bob Beckel, Alan Colmes and others among this group. They have Charles Krauthammer, who is, in my opinion, one of the smartest political analysts around. They also have experienced news people like Brit Hume and Chris Wallace. That FOX is losing its image as a crazy, marginal, illegitimate news network is becoming evident by the increased willingness of liberal favourites like Jon Stewart and Whoopi Goldberg to appear on FOX, and the impending interview of President Obama by Bill O'Reilly. FOX is becoming more mainstream, as is CNN. It however is moving from the right to a more middle point, with CNN moving from the left.
Then there is MSNBC. It has the most moving yet to do. As far as I can tell there are simply no alternative views expressed on MSNBC. Its motto is that it "leans forward"; by that I take it that it sees its mandate as being the progressive voice on television. That is fine if that is the role it wants to play; but it cannot have any pretense of balance. It also has to face the fact that ideological based shows generally are only preaching to the converted. Few others are watching. And with the American base moving to a more conservative position (as I believe President Obama himself is doing), the numbers of the converted for MSNBC are diminishing. Perhaps with a new owner and the departure of Olbermann, MSNBC will revisit what it wants to be and where it wants to go. It is after all a "for profit" commercial entity, and if the profits are diminishing, then the script will have to change. It will be interesting to watch MSNBC to see what happens, post Keith.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
A Palin Free Month..Yay!!
A loyal reader sent me this. I love it.
Thanks Sam.
FOLLOW UP:
Another interesting piece on the media (and others') obsession with Palin.
Thanks Sam.
FOLLOW UP:
Another interesting piece on the media (and others') obsession with Palin.
Keith Olbermann Fired
Keith Olbermann, MSNBC's most popular pundit is gone.
While this might come as a surprise to many, it was not to me. I saw this coming long ago, as it is a part of a general rethinking of cable news networks' ideologically dominated "news" shows. It is happening at CNN, MSNBC, and yes, even FOX.
More about this soon. (Got to shovel snow from my roof now).
While this might come as a surprise to many, it was not to me. I saw this coming long ago, as it is a part of a general rethinking of cable news networks' ideologically dominated "news" shows. It is happening at CNN, MSNBC, and yes, even FOX.
More about this soon. (Got to shovel snow from my roof now).
Saturday, January 15, 2011
AMNESIA
A few years ago, I attended a lecture concerning the ethical issues surrounding the use of drugs which induce amnesia. These drugs apparently are used in order to cause persons who have undergone painful and traumatic experiences to have their memories of these experiences lessened or erased. I was unfamiliar with this issue before and found the talk very interesting. One of the ethical issues raised by the lecturer concerning the use of amnesia inducing drugs was the wisdom in creating a situation in which we allow ourselves to forget things which although painful are important that we remember. An example given was war. Is society better off if soldiers returning from wars do not remember the horrors of war or is it more important that they and we remember the pain caused by terrible events and times so that we are more diligent in ensuring that they do not happen again? (For those interested in learning more about this issue, they can find a number of scholarly studies and discussions. See, for example a legal paper by Professor Kolber.
I thought of this issue of us wishing to forget or sanitize the past in the current controversies over the deletion of offensive words from literature and music. As you are probably aware, there is a controversy concerning the deletion of the 'N' word from Mark Twain's The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. The debate is so intense that even writing the word in news reports and discussions of the issue is avoided, the word being replaced by the phrase "the 'n' word" (as I myself have done here). I concede that my own unwillingness to use the word here may seem hypocritical to some, in view of the point of this posting. (But in my defence I note the obvious. This posting is not a classic piece of literature and I can fully make my argument without offending anyone.)
I note in passing that I recently attended a theatrical production of "Ma Rainey's Black Bottom"
a 1982 play by African American playwright August Wilson. The play was put on by the Arizona Theater Productions in Phoenix. It is about an African American blues legend, her band, and her record producers. The "n" word is used liberally in the script, dozens of times, when the band members were referring to each other. If the word had not been used, the play simply could not have been performed. I must admit I found the use of the word jarring. It made me feel uncomfortable. Seated near me were several African American members of the audience. I noted that they did not return to their seats after the intermission for the second half. I wondered how they felt about the play and whether they left because of that.
Another similar controversy concerns the use of the word "faggot" in the Dire Straits 1985 song "Money For Nothing". The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council has banned the playing of the song on Canadian radio unless that word is replaced by a non offensive one. This ruling has resulted in very strong protests and plans by at least one radio station to play the original song over and over.
These efforts to sanitize literature, music, art ( there is a debate now in Vancouver concerning the cancellation of an exhibit of paintings devoted to the memory of missing and murdered women) are in my opinion understandable but misplaced. No-one wants to be offensive and insensitive to the legitimate feelings of others. But how can we remember the nature of the horrors and injustices of the past if we are prevented from having actually to see them as vividly as we can? Is amnesia an answer? And what of the rights of the novelists, song writers and artists who struggle to communicate their messages as effectively and skilfully as they could? Should we be rewriting their literature, songs and repainting their art works so they do not cause offence? This is not a black and white issue - there are grey areas. But surely rewriting "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" or the song "Money for Nothing" does not fall into a grey area.
I thought of this issue of us wishing to forget or sanitize the past in the current controversies over the deletion of offensive words from literature and music. As you are probably aware, there is a controversy concerning the deletion of the 'N' word from Mark Twain's The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. The debate is so intense that even writing the word in news reports and discussions of the issue is avoided, the word being replaced by the phrase "the 'n' word" (as I myself have done here). I concede that my own unwillingness to use the word here may seem hypocritical to some, in view of the point of this posting. (But in my defence I note the obvious. This posting is not a classic piece of literature and I can fully make my argument without offending anyone.)
I note in passing that I recently attended a theatrical production of "Ma Rainey's Black Bottom"
a 1982 play by African American playwright August Wilson. The play was put on by the Arizona Theater Productions in Phoenix. It is about an African American blues legend, her band, and her record producers. The "n" word is used liberally in the script, dozens of times, when the band members were referring to each other. If the word had not been used, the play simply could not have been performed. I must admit I found the use of the word jarring. It made me feel uncomfortable. Seated near me were several African American members of the audience. I noted that they did not return to their seats after the intermission for the second half. I wondered how they felt about the play and whether they left because of that.
Another similar controversy concerns the use of the word "faggot" in the Dire Straits 1985 song "Money For Nothing". The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council has banned the playing of the song on Canadian radio unless that word is replaced by a non offensive one. This ruling has resulted in very strong protests and plans by at least one radio station to play the original song over and over.
These efforts to sanitize literature, music, art ( there is a debate now in Vancouver concerning the cancellation of an exhibit of paintings devoted to the memory of missing and murdered women) are in my opinion understandable but misplaced. No-one wants to be offensive and insensitive to the legitimate feelings of others. But how can we remember the nature of the horrors and injustices of the past if we are prevented from having actually to see them as vividly as we can? Is amnesia an answer? And what of the rights of the novelists, song writers and artists who struggle to communicate their messages as effectively and skilfully as they could? Should we be rewriting their literature, songs and repainting their art works so they do not cause offence? This is not a black and white issue - there are grey areas. But surely rewriting "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" or the song "Money for Nothing" does not fall into a grey area.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Is the blame game now over?
In his Tucson memorial service speech, President Obama could not have been more clear in his urgings to put an end to the blame game. A significant portion of the full text was devoted to that theme. For examples:
"But at a time when our discourse has become so polarized - at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who happen to think differently than we do - it's important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we're talking to each other in a way that heals, not in a way that wounds.
"Scripture tells us that there is evil in the world, and that terrible things happen for reasons that defy human understanding. In the words of Job, "When I looked for light then came darkness." Bad things happen, and we have to guard against simple explanations in the aftermath."
"For the truth is, none of us can know exactly what triggered the vicious attack. None of us can know with any certainty what might have stopped these shots from being fired, or what thoughts lurked in the inner recesses of a violent man's mind. Yes, we have to examine all the facts behind this tragedy. We cannot and will not be passive in the face of such violence. We should be willing to challenge old assumptions inn order to lessen the prospects of such violence in the future. But what we cannot do is use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on each other. That we cannot do. That we cannot do."
"As we discuss these issues, let each of us do so with a good dose of humility. Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let's use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy and remind ourselves all the ways that our hopes and dreams our bound together."
"If this tragedy prompts reflection and debate - as it should - let's make sure it's worthy of those we have lost. Let's make sure it's not on the usual plane of politics and point-scoring and pettiness that drifts away in the next news cycle."
Eloquent words, a strong message, well put - as is typical of President Obama's incredible rhetorical ability. But the question is. Will these words take hold? Will the pundits and politicos treat the speech as a buffet, where one can pick and choose what one likes and ignore the rest? More to the point, will they even see themselves in it, or instead think that the President was actually talking not about them but about someone else? (I recall for example when President Obama told Congress people that it was necessary to change Washington and end the climate of corruption. Everyone there stood up and applauded. It was as if the President could not have been referring to them but to some other non-existent politicians somewhere else).
Will the substance of talk radio, cable chatter, newspaper op-ed pieces, and political speeches now change? Or will it be business as usual, while everyone praises the speech? Let's watch.
"But at a time when our discourse has become so polarized - at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who happen to think differently than we do - it's important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we're talking to each other in a way that heals, not in a way that wounds.
"Scripture tells us that there is evil in the world, and that terrible things happen for reasons that defy human understanding. In the words of Job, "When I looked for light then came darkness." Bad things happen, and we have to guard against simple explanations in the aftermath."
"For the truth is, none of us can know exactly what triggered the vicious attack. None of us can know with any certainty what might have stopped these shots from being fired, or what thoughts lurked in the inner recesses of a violent man's mind. Yes, we have to examine all the facts behind this tragedy. We cannot and will not be passive in the face of such violence. We should be willing to challenge old assumptions inn order to lessen the prospects of such violence in the future. But what we cannot do is use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on each other. That we cannot do. That we cannot do."
"As we discuss these issues, let each of us do so with a good dose of humility. Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let's use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy and remind ourselves all the ways that our hopes and dreams our bound together."
"If this tragedy prompts reflection and debate - as it should - let's make sure it's worthy of those we have lost. Let's make sure it's not on the usual plane of politics and point-scoring and pettiness that drifts away in the next news cycle."
Eloquent words, a strong message, well put - as is typical of President Obama's incredible rhetorical ability. But the question is. Will these words take hold? Will the pundits and politicos treat the speech as a buffet, where one can pick and choose what one likes and ignore the rest? More to the point, will they even see themselves in it, or instead think that the President was actually talking not about them but about someone else? (I recall for example when President Obama told Congress people that it was necessary to change Washington and end the climate of corruption. Everyone there stood up and applauded. It was as if the President could not have been referring to them but to some other non-existent politicians somewhere else).
Will the substance of talk radio, cable chatter, newspaper op-ed pieces, and political speeches now change? Or will it be business as usual, while everyone praises the speech? Let's watch.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Tucson
I have delayed writing this post. What can I say about the tragic events in Tucson which has not already been said by others? Nevertheless, before I can move on, I must say something. So some thoughts.
What happened in Tucson last weekend was simply horrible. We were at a restaurant counter in Phoenix when CNN started breaking the news of the shootings in Tucson. As the afternoon wore on, the news began to reveal the enormity of the tragedy. A Congress woman shot in the head fighting for her life, several dead including a nine year old girl and a Federal judge, many more injured. The next day, when the interviews were aired of the parents of the young girl, it was hard not to cry. The composure of the parents as they spoke of their precious daughter was unbelievable. Their strength and their faith must be very strong. The tales of the heroes who risked their lives to help the wounded and bring down the shooter were inspiring. Where do these heroes come from? Is the act of risking one's own life to save others instinctive or learned behaviour? What would I have done had I been there?
The tragedy must have reinforced negative views that some of us have of the United States, or maybe Arizona. Too many guns out there, too many unstable persons on the loose. Is that the problem? Could anything have been done? Or are these things inevitable?
What happened next however totally took me by surprise. What I think I have seen before when Americans suffer a national tragedy is a coming together. A putting away of the divisions, and a unity of purpose. Not this time. What happened next was an obscenity. As all of you know who have been following this story, especially on the cable news channels and on the internet, what happened next was a despicable, insensitive, and hateful debate about "blame". The victims were still fighting for their lives, the dead not yet buried, but the pundits and political opportunists were at it. Action from the left, reaction from the right.
I will not enter that debate. I have neither the information nor the expertise to even begin to try to explain what happened and why. And even if I did, now is not the time. Perhaps some of those who jumped in when they did are regretting that decision; at least I hope so. For their sake, I hope the victims and their families who might have been watching this spectacle, will forgive them.
What happened in Tucson last weekend was simply horrible. We were at a restaurant counter in Phoenix when CNN started breaking the news of the shootings in Tucson. As the afternoon wore on, the news began to reveal the enormity of the tragedy. A Congress woman shot in the head fighting for her life, several dead including a nine year old girl and a Federal judge, many more injured. The next day, when the interviews were aired of the parents of the young girl, it was hard not to cry. The composure of the parents as they spoke of their precious daughter was unbelievable. Their strength and their faith must be very strong. The tales of the heroes who risked their lives to help the wounded and bring down the shooter were inspiring. Where do these heroes come from? Is the act of risking one's own life to save others instinctive or learned behaviour? What would I have done had I been there?
The tragedy must have reinforced negative views that some of us have of the United States, or maybe Arizona. Too many guns out there, too many unstable persons on the loose. Is that the problem? Could anything have been done? Or are these things inevitable?
What happened next however totally took me by surprise. What I think I have seen before when Americans suffer a national tragedy is a coming together. A putting away of the divisions, and a unity of purpose. Not this time. What happened next was an obscenity. As all of you know who have been following this story, especially on the cable news channels and on the internet, what happened next was a despicable, insensitive, and hateful debate about "blame". The victims were still fighting for their lives, the dead not yet buried, but the pundits and political opportunists were at it. Action from the left, reaction from the right.
I will not enter that debate. I have neither the information nor the expertise to even begin to try to explain what happened and why. And even if I did, now is not the time. Perhaps some of those who jumped in when they did are regretting that decision; at least I hope so. For their sake, I hope the victims and their families who might have been watching this spectacle, will forgive them.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Change You Can Believe In
Here is a brief profile of President Obama's new Chief of Staff: William Daley.
Some followers are not that happy.
Is this the change you can believe in?
You decide.
Some followers are not that happy.
Is this the change you can believe in?
You decide.
Follow up: The Firing of Juan Williams
For those of you interested in the Juan Williams' firing over at National Public Radio, there was some fall out today.
One senior executive fired; another lost her "bonus".
Hear what Juan has to say about it
One senior executive fired; another lost her "bonus".
Hear what Juan has to say about it
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
